PDA

View Full Version : Is Baptism an outward sign of an inward change?



Pages : 1 [2]

Butch5
Oct 29th 2008, 12:14 AM
No, Naaman was literally, physically cleansed...not spiritually.
No, Israel's crossing of the sea literally saved them physically...not spiritually.
And Pharaoh was literally, physically destroyed.
No, Noah was literally, physically saved...not spiritually. Although Noah is named among the OT saints who died in faith looking for the promise.
No, people healed at the pool of Bethesda were literally, physically healed...not spiritually, unless they were also born again.
No, the blind man was literally, physically healed...spiritually??? Only if he had been born again.

What is the Spiritual significance of all the miracles in Scripture? Were they not to authenticate the message as well as the messenger? What Message and Messenger would need to be authenticated?

Blessings,
RW

Hi Roger,

Yes they were.


Regarding the my statements about the events being symbolic, you said they were all physical, that is correct. However remember Peter said that Noah in the flood was an antitype to our baptism?

Thayer’s Greek Definitions

G499 ἀντίτυπον antitupon Thayer Definition: 1) a thing formed after some pattern 2) a thing resembling another, its counterpart 2a) something in the Messianic times which answers to the type, as baptism corresponds to the deluge (1 Pet 3:21)

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

G499 ἀντίτυπον antitupon an-teet'-oo-pon Neuter of a compound of G473 and G5179; corresponding (“antitype”), that is, a representative, counterpart:—(like) figure (whereunto).

Those physically saving events were the counter part of our spiritual salvation and Peter says this is water baptism.

BroRog
Oct 29th 2008, 12:21 AM
Hi Roger,

Yes they were.


Regarding the my statements about the events being symbolic, you said they were all physical, that is correct. However remember Peter said that Noah in the flood was an antitype to our baptism?

Thayer’s Greek Definitions

G499 ἀντίτυπον antitupon Thayer Definition: 1) a thing formed after some pattern 2) a thing resembling another, its counterpart 2a) something in the Messianic times which answers to the type, as baptism corresponds to the deluge (1 Pet 3:21)

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

G499 ἀντίτυπον antitupon an-teet'-oo-pon Neuter of a compound of G473 and G5179; corresponding (“antitype”), that is, a representative, counterpart:—(like) figure (whereunto).

Those physically saving events were the counter part of our spiritual salvation and Peter says this is water baptism.

Side Note:

Take your closed fist and punch a mass of soft clay. Your hand is the "tupos", the impression in the clay is the "antitupos".

[End of illustration]

Butch5
Oct 29th 2008, 12:42 AM
1 Peter 3:20-21
who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It's symbollic of washing away the old wordly man, and bringing forth the new eternal Godly man by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Now at the same time, we need to take into account that Jesus did say "repent and be baptized." Thus he is kind of commanding that one should be baptized by something in a sense. I don't think that he was implying with this statement that the water baptism itself necessarily demonstrates an inner change. Still, he does lead by example by getting baptized by John..so I guess ideally one should try to follow his example. Definitely not going to hurt anyone to be baptized by water, and I think it demonstrates a step in the right direction in one's Christian walk.

God bless,

Stephen

I don't know that I would bet the farm on one poor translation. I looked at 30 translations and only the NIV has it worded like that.

Here is Young's Literal Translation

Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible

1 Peter 3:21 ( YLT ) 21also to which an antitype doth now save us—baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ,

Look up the Greek word for antitype, the definition IS NOT a symbol.

So I repeat the question.

Butch5
Oct 29th 2008, 12:44 AM
Side Note:

Take your closed fist and punch a mass of soft clay. Your hand is the "tupos", the impression in the clay is the "antitupos".

[End of illustration]

Your point is???

RogerW
Oct 29th 2008, 01:39 AM
I don't know that I would bet the farm on one poor translation. I looked at 30 translations and only the NIV has it worded like that.

Here is Young's Literal Translation

Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible

1 Peter 3:21 ( YLT ) 21also to which an antitype doth now save us—baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ,

Look up the Greek word for antitype, the definition IS NOT a symbol.

So I repeat the question.

The water is a symbol, in like manner now saves us; that is, the water is a symbol of the purifying by which we are saved. It saves us, not as the meritorious cause, but as the condition of salvation; i.e. answer of a good conscience toward God. No man can be saved without a regenerated and purified heart of which baptism is the symbol. It does not mean that water saves us in the same way in which it saved Noah, for that cannot be true, for water does not save us. Nor is it applied in the same way, nor is it efficacious in the same manner. It is connected with our salvation as a symbol of the purifying of the heart by which we are saved. Therefore it corresponds with the salvation of Noah by water, and is the (antitupon) antitype of that. Nor does it mean that the salvation of Noah by water was designed to be a type of Christian baptism. There is not the least evidence of that.

Go again to Jo 3.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

We are born again by the Spirit in the manner that Christ was born into this world. He came by water; i.e. Holy Spirit, and blood; i.e. incarnate/human body.

1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
1Jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1Jo 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

This passage cannot be saying Christ came by human birth (water) and blood (incarnate/human birth). Nor is it saying that Christ came through water baptism and blood (incarnate). We all know that Christ was born a man (blood) of the Spirit (water). This is how we are born again by washing of the water of regeneration by the Word and the Holy Spirit, and this is what 1Pe 3:21 symbolizes.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Oct 29th 2008, 01:45 AM
Side Note:

Take your closed fist and punch a mass of soft clay. Your hand is the "tupos", the impression in the clay is the "antitupos".

[End of illustration]

Good point BroRog! The impression in the clay is not the closed fist or even the actual hand, only a type/representative or as you say an impression of the fist.

Many Blessings,
RW

Butch5
Oct 29th 2008, 02:04 AM
The water is a symbol, in like manner now saves us; that is, the water is a symbol of the purifying by which we are saved. It saves us, not as the meritorious cause, but as the condition of salvation; i.e. answer of a good conscience toward God. No man can be saved without a regenerated and purified heart of which baptism is the symbol. It does not mean that water saves us in the same way in which it saved Noah, for that cannot be true, for water does not save us. Nor is it applied in the same way, nor is it efficacious in the same manner. It is connected with our salvation as a symbol of the purifying of the heart by which we are saved. Therefore it corresponds with the salvation of Noah by water, and is the (antitupon) antitype of that. Nor does it mean that the salvation of Noah by water was designed to be a type of Christian baptism. There is not the least evidence of that.

Go again to Jo 3.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

We are born again by the Spirit in the manner that Christ was born into this world. He came by water; i.e. Holy Spirit, and blood; i.e. incarnate/human body.

1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
1Jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1Jo 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

This passage cannot be saying Christ came by human birth (water) and blood (incarnate/human birth). Nor is it saying that Christ came through water baptism and blood (incarnate). We all know that Christ was born a man (blood) of the Spirit (water). This is how we are born again by washing of the water of regeneration by the Word and the Holy Spirit, and this is what 1Pe 3:21 symbolizes.

Many Blessings,
RW

Roger, you have not yet shown where baptism is a symbol. You Keep saying water baptism is a symbol, please show me where this is in Scripture. Look at the verses you quote,

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

If this water is not baptism, Please show how it is not baptism, from Scripture.

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Same here. Please show using Scripture.

It is cleaned by the "washing of water" this doesn't say anything about a symbol. It says "washing of water" by the word, or according to the word. The word, the gospel tells us to be water baptized.

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Here also, please you Scripture to show this is NOT water baptism.

Is Paul saying that God saved us by the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of the Holy Spirit? No, renewing of the Holy Spirit is the Spirit baptism. So then, the "washing of regeneration" obviously is not Spirit baptism. Since Jesus said no man can enter the the kingdom of God unless he is born of "WATER" and the Spirit, the "washing of regeneration" and only be water baptism. Paul also tells us here that water baptism is not a work

However, please show how these verses are not referring to water baptism.

RogerW
Oct 29th 2008, 02:48 AM
Roger, you have not yet shown where baptism is a symbol. You Keep saying water baptism is a symbol, please show me where this is in Scripture. Look at the verses you quote,

Either water baptism is symbol or these verses say we are saved twice, once by John's baptism, and again by the Holy Spirit.

Mt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Ac 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.



Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

If this water is not baptism, Please show how it is not baptism, from Scripture.

I already have, and so have others and you will not receive it.



Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Same here. Please show using Scripture.

It is cleaned by the "washing of water" this doesn't say anything about a symbol. It says "washing of water" by the word, or according to the word. The word, the gospel tells us to be water baptized.

"By" (en) is never translated "according". The context of the passage clearly shows that the washing of water by the word is something Christ does in us, not something (baptism) we do ourselves. Christ loves His church and gave himself for it, "that HE (not we) might santify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word" to present to Himself a glorius church holy and without blemish.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.



Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Here also, please you Scripture to show this is NOT water baptism.

Is Paul saying that God saved us by the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of the Holy Spirit? No, renewing of the Holy Spirit is the Spirit baptism. So then, the "washing of regeneration" obviously is not Spirit baptism. Since Jesus said no man can enter the the kingdom of God unless he is born of "WATER" and the Spirit, the "washing of regeneration" and only be water baptism. Paul also tells us here that water baptism is not a work

However, please show how these verses are not referring to water baptism.

How can this be water baptism when it very clearly tells us "not by works of righteousness which we have done"? Would not baptism be a work of righteousness?

Righteousness comes from the Greek word dikaiosune equity (of character or act); specially (Christian) justification:--righteousness.

Blessings,
RW

Butch5
Oct 29th 2008, 03:27 AM
Roger---Either water baptism is symbol or these verses say we are saved twice, once by John's baptism, and again by the Holy Spirit.

Mt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Ac 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


Both of these statement were before the death of Christ. I never said anyone was saved by John's baptism.



Roger---I already have, and so have others and you will not receive it.

No, you haven't. You've posted a few verses that you state support your position. I have gone through the Scriptures and shown a pattern showing the teachings on water baptism.





Roger---"By" (en) is never translated "according". The context of the passage clearly shows that the washing of water by the word is something Christ does in us, not something (baptism) we do ourselves. Christ loves His church and gave himself for it, "that HE (not we) might santify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word" to present to Himself a glorius church holy and without blemish.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.


Yes, Christ cleansed the church with the "washing of water", it doesn't get any clearer than that. He clearly says it was washed with water.



Roger---How can this be water baptism when it very clearly tells us "not by works of righteousness which we have done"? Would not baptism be a work of righteousness?

Righteousness comes from the Greek word dikaiosune equity (of character or act); specially (Christian) justification:--righteousness.


Obviously not because Paul says it is not. However, it is clearly water baptism. Jesus said born of water and Spirit, Paul says we were saved by water and Spirit.

seamus414
Oct 29th 2008, 11:44 AM
RogerW:
Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Its not very common to hear Christians making a distinction between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption (if that is what you are doing?). I too view the sacraments through grace. That is both sacraments show us the promise of the gospel of grace.

Reception of the grace of Christ forgives one of his sins. This grace can be resisted. This grace can also be rejected after reception.

Now I'm confused by your answer, because here you seem to be saying that receiving grace is the same as being saved???

No. Accepting the grace of Christ saves one's soul. Certainly.

Or are you saying that grace can be rejected, but not salvation?

No. If grace is rejected, one is not saved.

How can one be an apostate Christian? We are either believers or unbelievers.

An apostate can only be a Christian. Someone cannot be apostate who was never a believer at some point. That is the definition of apostacy - to reject what one once believed.

This could only happen if salvation can be lost, and I believe in perserverance of the saints.

I do not. I believe salvation can be lost.

Veretax
Oct 29th 2008, 11:59 AM
[/font][/size][/font]

Hi Veretax,

Ga 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Ga 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Ga 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Ga 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Ga 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

The promise is by faith "of" Christ. Not just any faith, or our faith, but the faith "of" Christ. As you have said, before faith "of" Christ came, OT saints were kept under the law, shut up unto "the" faith which would be revealed after Christ came. The law was the teacher to bring them to Christ, that they might be justified by faith. Not their faith, but faith "of" Christ, that they might be justified by faith "in" Christ rather than believing they were justified by their faith. We have faith "in" Him, not in our faith to justify us. How can we be justified by faith in Christ, unless we understand that saving faith is of Christ? Not just faith, but "that" faith whereby we might be justified is come.


I don't see your point I'm afraid. I've not been saying that faith in a cat, or a dog, or a person (another human) saves. It has to be a faith in what Christ did on the Cross and nothing else. I only used those as examples that we as humans do have a small understanding of what faith is even before we are saved. There is only one true faith that saves though, and the only way to come to that faith is by hearing the word of God and responding to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. So for the OT saints, their faith had to be in the promised Seed/Messiah that would come and save them from their sins, in essence.

Now that passage in galatians reads a little different to me. To me it reads, that the Scriptures have concluded that all are sinners (I'm paraphrasing that part here so bear with me as I give you my understanding). that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ.... What does that mean? My understanding is that the promise is granted by faith of Christ, maybe we are not disagreeing over this as much as we think, but I put the emphasis on the promise. That promise is given to them that believe. The two words for faith and ones believing, appear to be forms of the exact same word in the greek.

I think perhaps you are arguing semantics. When I say we are justified by Faith, it is always the Faith in Christ and what he did on the Cross. I've never had any doubts about that. Maybe I confused you with what I said, and if so I'm sorry for that, it was not my intention. Now, where we disagree is whether the faith comes from Christ, or is the response to conviction of the Holy Spirit through belieft. I believe it is the later, that the ability to trust in/on/of Christ is granted by hearing the word of God, and by hearing it we are then called to faith.





[/size][/font]

Ga 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Again, Galatians 2 shows us we are justified by the faith "of" Christ when we believe "in" Jesus. Justified by His faith, believing in Him to save us, and not our faith, that we might be justified by the faith "of" Christ. If we are not justified by the faith "of" Christ, then our justification comes from our flesh. This cannot be because the flesh profits nothing.


And on this we agree, a man is not justified by his works according to the Law, yet as James said we must show our faith by our works, but the works does not justify in God's eyes, although it may appear to in Man's eyes, but the account with God is what really matters. It almost seems like we are using different meanings of the word "of" here. you seem to be seeing it as from, where I see it as being "in" or "associated to". as long as we disagree on what "of" is meaning, I don't think we will come to an agreement on what this passage in Galatians is saying. However, I still stand on my assertian, that the ability to trust, and to have faith, is part of being a human naturally at birth, and I believe we have that ability because man was originally created in God's image.








Ro 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

If justification is of our faith, how can it be by grace? We are saved by the same faith of Abraham, not of ourselves but a gift of God's grace.


Hrms, the analogy I always see is that each of us has a sin debt. Christ has a check to cover that debt and any future debt, that's grace. in order to get the justification of that grace, we have to accept it by faith. So I dont' see a contradiction here, Christ paying our sin debt is sufficient for our debts, but it is only applied if we believe and have faith. I do not see faith as a work though, it is a change of mind. for me when i was saved, I had to turn from believing that I had to be perfect on my own, had to keep the laws, even though I knew I was a law breaker, and I messed up a lot, to turn from trusting in that for my salvation, to trusting in Christ to take care of the matter for me.

I don't think you can separate grace and faith at the moment of salvation, I think its a bit of a dualism if you will, both happened at salvation. Grace was applied, and it was applied by accepting it by faith. It was in my mind a single transaction, not two separate ones. (And I'm rolling my eyes at myself, because I feel like I've gotten off track on this discussion somehwere), and it is through faith that as taht verse says, the promise is assured to the seed, and I agree here its the same faith Abraham had, in the promised seed that was to come, which we know is in fact Christ.



[font=Arial]

I agree! There is no doubt that all men have faith. There is also no doubt that if a man might have supernatural saving faith, which is not a natural faith originating from the flesh, then he must be convicted by the power of gospel of salvation, and the Holy Spirit. Once convicted through this supernatural power, believers will naturally excercise this faith they have received through repentance and turning to Christ for life.

Many Blessings,
RW

Again, I believe that a person that puts their faith in Christ is changing their mind, its an act of repentance, its an act of turning from trusting in myself to do what is necessary to enter heaven, to trust in Christ instead. I believe that the Word of God is the power that draws, calls, and enables us to take that step of faith. Remember, God makes it clear that even the faith of a Child can be to salvation. We are making it out to be some complicated thing it really isn't, its so simple, and I think that's why Christ said that many, like the Rich, for example would miss it, because they want there to be more to it.

Salvation is by faith in Christ, and that faith is in the grace which Christ shed for us on the cross. Faith is in essence an acknowledgement and a turning point for us.

John146
Oct 29th 2008, 03:16 PM
[/font][/size][/font]

Hi Veretax,

Ga 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Ga 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Ga 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Ga 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Ga 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

The promise is by faith "of" Christ. Not just any faith, or our faith, but the faith "of" Christ. As you have said, before faith "of" Christ came, OT saints were kept under the law, shut up unto "the" faith which would be revealed after Christ came. The law was the teacher to bring them to Christ, that they might be justified by faith. Not their faith, but faith "of" Christ, that they might be justified by faith "in" Christ rather than believing they were justified by their faith. We have faith "in" Him, not in our faith to justify us. How can we be justified by faith in Christ, unless we understand that saving faith is of Christ? Not just faith, but "that" faith whereby we might be justified is come.


[/size][/font]

Ga 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Again, Galatians 2 shows us we are justified by the faith "of" Christ when we believe "in" Jesus. Justified by His faith, believing in Him to save us, and not our faith, that we might be justified by the faith "of" Christ. If we are not justified by the faith "of" Christ, then our justification comes from our flesh. This cannot be because the flesh profits nothing. Why did Christ need faith? There is no such thing as the faith of Christ. He didn't have saving faith. Faith in what? Himself? That translation is not the best at times. Here is a better translation of those verses:

Gal 3 (NKJV)
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

This translation makes verses 22 and 26 say the same thing instead of something different as the KJV does. We are given the promise of being sons of God by having faith in Jesus Christ.

Gal 2
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

This translation makes the verse more coherent and consistent than the KJV. Why would he say that we are justified by the faith of Christ and then shortly after say we are justified by faith in Christ? That makes him look like he was confused as to whether it was the faith of Christ or faith in Christ that justifies a person.


Ro 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

If justification is of our faith, how can it be by grace? We are saved by the same faith of Abraham, not of ourselves but a gift of God's grace. Right. The same faith of Abraham. He had his own faith. Where does it say that his faith was supernaturally given to him? Instead, it says that God was pleased with Abraham's faith and accounted it to him for righteousness.


I agree! There is no doubt that all men have faith. There is also no doubt that if a man might have supernatural saving faith, which is not a natural faith originating from the flesh, then he must be convicted by the power of gospel of salvation, and the Holy Spirit. Once convicted through this supernatural power, believers will naturally excercise this faith they have received through repentance and turning to Christ for life.

Many Blessings,
RWScripture doesn't teach anywhere that we are supernaturally given saving faith. The Holy Spirit speaks to the hearts and consciences of all people to convict them of their sin, but many stubbornly choose to refuse to repent. God puts in the hearts of all people an ability to not only believe in Him because of what He has made (Romans 1) but also the ability to respond with repentance and faith to the gospel.

John146
Oct 29th 2008, 03:31 PM
It is required unnder the new covenant, which didn't begin until Christ died. The thief was saved before Christ died.Was the thief somehow saved apart from the new covenant of grace by the shed blood of Christ? That's impossible. No one is saved under any covenant but the new covenant. The OT saints were not saved under the old covenant. There is no forgiveness of sins and salvation apart from Christ and the new covenant of His blood.

Matt14
Oct 29th 2008, 04:48 PM
Is baptism and outward sign of an inward change or conversion? This question came up in another thread, because I had stated that baptism is not an outward sign of an inward change. What do I mean by such a statement? Before I answer this question I would like your input with Scripture support.

Many Blessings,
RW

Hi RogerW,

According to scriptures, baptism is for the remission of sins:

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus gives baptism as a requirement in order to be saved, since belief and baptism are put before salvation in His own words:

Mar 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

The apostle Peter says baptism is necessary:

1Pe 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Baptism is part of becoming a disciple of Christ:

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

Since John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 seem to be referring to the same event, it appears that when a person who has developed faith in Christ obeys the command to be baptized, he or she then receives the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16) and is added to the church (Acts 2:41,47).

Therefore, baptism is not an "outward sign of an inward grace," but is rather a required step in obedience to God by which one enters the New Covenant in the blood of Christ.

Read Galatians 3:26-29, and notice that those who are baptized put on Christ, and become heirs of the promise.

God bless!

Matt14
Oct 29th 2008, 04:57 PM
Side Note:

Take your closed fist and punch a mass of soft clay. Your hand is the "tupos", the impression in the clay is the "antitupos".

[End of illustration]

Hello BroRog,

This is not correct. The "antitupos" is the actual thing, the "tupos" is the thing that is a symbol.

Look at Romans 5:14 and see that Adam is the "tupos" of "Him who was to come," meaning Jesus. Jesus here would be the "antitupos," or the actual thing, whereas Adam was merely the symbol of Christ.

Same goes for baptism, which is the "antitupos" wherein we ask God for a good conscience, and the flood was a "tupos" of this salvation, or just a symbol of the New Testament salvation.

Friend of I AM
Oct 29th 2008, 06:51 PM
I don't know that I would bet the farm on one poor translation. I looked at 30 translations and only the NIV has it worded like that.

Here is Young's Literal Translation

Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible

1 Peter 3:21 ( YLT ) 21also to which an antitype doth now save us—baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ,

Look up the Greek word for antitype, the definition IS NOT a symbol.

So I repeat the question.

Here is the definition of the word antitype....

an·ti·type
One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.


So an antitype is a type of symbol. Both the flood and the water baptism themselves are symbolic of the inward change of washing away/clearing the conscience, and the renewing of the spirit through the resurrection.

God bless,

Stephen

John146
Oct 29th 2008, 06:54 PM
Both of these statement were before the death of Christ. I never said anyone was saved by John's baptism.What do you think water baptism is? It's John's baptism. And you are trying to say that people are saved by water baptism, which is John's baptism.

Matt 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mark 1:8
I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Luke 3:16
John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

John 1:26
John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

Acts 1
5For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

It is only the baptism of the Spirit that Christ performs in our hearts and spirits that places us into the body of Christ, not water baptism.

1 Cor 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

The baptism of the Spirit is not unlike being circumcised of the heart, in the spirit. There is nothing physical about it.

Teke
Oct 29th 2008, 08:25 PM
Did Christ find saving faith, or was this a case of faith, or knowing that Christ could physically heal? And does this faith originate naturally from hearing or seeing the many miracles Christ had performed? Or is his faith supernatural saving faith? Is believing Christ can physically heal the same as believing Christ for eternal life?



Same question...is their faith in Christ's ability to heal or saving faith?



Isn't it a little odd that the diciples who are with Him day and night do not have even enough faith to know that Christ would get them safely to the other side of the sea?



It was the friends who have faith that Christ can save the man with the palsy, yet Christ forgives the man with the palsy. Does that make sense? Was this paralized man forgiven based on the faith of His friends? Can our faith save others?



It seems the apostles knew that increased faith comes from reliance on the One to Who gave it to begin with, and is why they ask Him to increase what they have already received of Him. Why would they need to ask Christ to increase their faith if saving faith is something that comes from ourselves?



There is no question that God will be faithful to His promises. But will His people grow weary through the manifold trials inflicted upon them, and allow their steadfast faith to fade? The danger is that his afflicted people will become discouraged; will not persevere in prayer; will not continue to have confidence in Him; and will, under heavy trials, sink into despondency.

Many Blessings,
RW

Glad you asked Roger. :D
God can do anything with our faith. Doesn't matter if we have a little, a lot, or if we think we have none. It's like the seed analogy. The seed can't do anything without external help (Note: the baptism of the church into the Body is an external help). God causes the seed to grow. And it can grow as big as the person who holds it is willing to let it. Because it grows in the Body of Christ. Baptism is essential for this to happen.

As to whether our faith can save others, that should be plain from scripture. Abraham is the first person we read of in scripture who literally negotiates with God for Sodom and Gomorrah, if there be any amount of righteous people there He would save it. In that instance there was not enough righteous people (people with virtuous faith) there that God would save those cities.
This could very well be how God sees the church in the world. As long as there are enough righteous people (those with virtuous faith) He will not destroy all the people. The priesthood of Israel made sacrifices for all the nations of people in the world.
With this understanding it should be evident that the peoples faith can save other people. Whether that be "saved" in finding salvation in Christ, or "saved" in a more physical sense, as from death.


..is their faith in Christ's ability to heal or saving faith?
What is the difference?

awestruckchild
Oct 29th 2008, 08:51 PM
I don't know if anyone will want my input here and I don't think I have posted in this thread yet, though I've read most of it.

I am very interested in this discussion because I have never been water baptized but I have, without a shadow of a doubt, received the Holy Spirit.

Because of this, I have no other way to look at this other than a water baptism is an outer sign, like a sacrament, of what takes place in us spiritually.

I mean, if it was a requirement, why on earth would I have received the Spirit and learned to know what His voice is without one?

Matt14
Oct 29th 2008, 09:21 PM
I don't know if anyone will want my input here and I don't think I have posted in this thread yet, though I've read most of it.

I am very interested in this discussion because I have never been water baptized but I have, without a shadow of a doubt, received the Holy Spirit.

Because of this, I have no other way to look at this other than a water baptism is an outer sign, like a sacrament, of what takes place in us spiritually.

I mean, if it was a requirement, why on earth would I have received the Spirit and learned to know what His voice is without one?

Hi paintdiva,

Which do you think is a more reliable source: How I think or feel, or what the Bible says?

seamus414
Oct 29th 2008, 09:26 PM
I don't know if anyone will want my input here and I don't think I have posted in this thread yet, though I've read most of it.

I am very interested in this discussion because I have never been water baptized but I have, without a shadow of a doubt, received the Holy Spirit.

Because of this, I have no other way to look at this other than a water baptism is an outer sign, like a sacrament, of what takes place in us spiritually.

I mean, if it was a requirement, why on earth would I have received the Spirit and learned to know what His voice is without one?


Refusal of baptism is a sin as getting baptized is a direct command of Christ for his followers. There is no good reason to refuse or not get baptized when one embraces Christ.

Butch5
Oct 29th 2008, 10:57 PM
Why did Christ need faith? There is no such thing as the faith of Christ. He didn't have saving faith. Faith in what? Himself? That translation is not the best at times. Here is a better translation of those verses:

Gal 3 (NKJV)
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

This translation makes verses 22 and 26 say the same thing instead of something different as the KJV does. We are given the promise of being sons of God by having faith in Jesus Christ.

Gal 2
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

This translation makes the verse more coherent and consistent than the KJV. Why would he say that we are justified by the faith of Christ and then shortly after say we are justified by faith in Christ? That makes him look like he was confused as to whether it was the faith of Christ or faith in Christ that justifies a person.

Right. The same faith of Abraham. He had his own faith. Where does it say that his faith was supernaturally given to him? Instead, it says that God was pleased with Abraham's faith and accounted it to him for righteousness.

Scripture doesn't teach anywhere that we are supernaturally given saving faith. The Holy Spirit speaks to the hearts and consciences of all people to convict them of their sin, but many stubbornly choose to refuse to repent. God puts in the hearts of all people an ability to not only believe in Him because of what He has made (Romans 1) but also the ability to respond with repentance and faith to the gospel.

The faith OF Jesus Christ is the gospel.

Butch5
Oct 29th 2008, 11:04 PM
Was the thief somehow saved apart from the new covenant of grace by the shed blood of Christ? That's impossible. No one is saved under any covenant but the new covenant. The OT saints were not saved under the old covenant. There is no forgiveness of sins and salvation apart from Christ and the new covenant of His blood.

Are you going to just continue to repeat your statements? Baptism was required under the NT covenant. When the thief was saved the New covenant had not yet begun because Christ was still alive.

The Holy Bible, King James Version

Hebrews 9:15-17 ( KJV ) 15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Butch5
Oct 29th 2008, 11:13 PM
Here is the definition of the word antitype....

an·ti·type
One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.


So an antitype is a type of symbol. Both the flood and the water baptism themselves are symbolic of the inward change of washing away/clearing the conscience, and the renewing of the spirit through the resurrection.

God bless,

Stephen


Steven, I've been over this already. I have shown how the Flood was the antitype of baptism. Noah was saved physically in the flood, we are saved Spiritually in water baptism. I have given an overwhelming amount of evidential support for water baptism in this thread, yet many choose to reject it. No one has shown where the evidence I presented was wrong, they just keep repeating the same verses over and over. If you think that my position is wrong please go back to my posts look at the evidence and show me how it is wrong. If you can show it is wrong, I am all ears.

Butch5
Oct 29th 2008, 11:18 PM
What do you think water baptism is? It's John's baptism. And you are trying to say that people are saved by water baptism, which is John's baptism.

Matt 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mark 1:8
I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Luke 3:16
John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

John 1:26
John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

Acts 1
5For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

It is only the baptism of the Spirit that Christ performs in our hearts and spirits that places us into the body of Christ, not water baptism.

1 Cor 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

The baptism of the Spirit is not unlike being circumcised of the heart, in the spirit. There is nothing physical about it.

John,

Do you think the apostles baptized in the name of John? The apostles baptized in the name of Jesus, so water baptism is not John's baptism. Yes, John did baptize before Christ, however what did John say when Jesus came on the scene? He must increase and I must decrease. When Jesus gave the great commission, He told the apostles to baptized in whose name?

Butch5
Oct 29th 2008, 11:19 PM
I don't know if anyone will want my input here and I don't think I have posted in this thread yet, though I've read most of it.

I am very interested in this discussion because I have never been water baptized but I have, without a shadow of a doubt, received the Holy Spirit.

Because of this, I have no other way to look at this other than a water baptism is an outer sign, like a sacrament, of what takes place in us spiritually.

I mean, if it was a requirement, why on earth would I have received the Spirit and learned to know what His voice is without one?

How do you know you received the Spirit?

Veretax
Oct 30th 2008, 12:36 AM
Hi paintdiva,

Which do you think is a more reliable source: How I think or feel, or what the Bible says?


While I agree that what the bible said is more important than emotional context, let's be reasonable here. Salvation is by faith through grace, and that not of works lest any should boast. I'm sorry, but baptism does NOT save. It is essentially an outward profession, of submission to the Church and to Christ, an act of obedience, and paintdiva, I encourage you to consider getting baptized. You know in your heart that your account is settled with God, all that remains is to humble yourself and become identified with the church through baptism. Not that baptism saves, it doesn't, but I do believe that even though it was years after I was saved, that God poured out an extra measure of grace and blessing when I finally submitted to be baptized according to the scriptures. I think it is very important for every Christian to be baptized, but it is not under any circumstance a requirement for salvation.


How do you know you received the Spirit?



Butch I hate to sound like a broken record, but a person will know when the Holy Spirit comes into their heart, its going to be obvious and you know he's within you because you will find your life rearranging as Christ begins repairing us and producing spiritual fruit within us.

BroRog
Oct 30th 2008, 12:46 AM
Hello BroRog,

This is not correct. The "antitupos" is the actual thing, the "tupos" is the thing that is a symbol.

Look at Romans 5:14 and see that Adam is the "tupos" of "Him who was to come," meaning Jesus. Jesus here would be the "antitupos," or the actual thing, whereas Adam was merely the symbol of Christ.

Same goes for baptism, which is the "antitupos" wherein we ask God for a good conscience, and the flood was a "tupos" of this salvation, or just a symbol of the New Testament salvation.

I stand corrected. Thank you. Memory is fading. :)

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 01:27 AM
While I agree that what the bible said is more important than emotional context, let's be reasonable here. Salvation is by faith through grace, and that not of works lest any should boast. I'm sorry, but baptism does NOT save. It is essentially an outward profession, of submission to the Church and to Christ, an act of obedience, and paintdiva, I encourage you to consider getting baptized. You know in your heart that your account is settled with God, all that remains is to humble yourself and become identified with the church through baptism. Not that baptism saves, it doesn't, but I do believe that even though it was years after I was saved, that God poured out an extra measure of grace and blessing when I finally submitted to be baptized according to the scriptures. I think it is very important for every Christian to be baptized, but it is not under any circumstance a requirement for salvation.






Butch I hate to sound like a broken record, but a person will know when the Holy Spirit comes into their heart, its going to be obvious and you know he's within you because you will find your life rearranging as Christ begins repairing us and producing spiritual fruit within us.

Can you show this from Scripture?

lendtay
Oct 30th 2008, 01:32 AM
"And let those who are not found living as He taught, be understood to be no Christians, even though they profess with the lip the precepts of Christ; for not those who make profession, but those who do the works, shall be saved, according to His word: “Not every one who saith to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven."

So, are you saying that it is works that saves and not faith? Please explain further, thanks.

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 01:45 AM
"And let those who are not found living as He taught, be understood to be no Christians, even though they profess with the lip the precepts of Christ; for not those who make profession, but those who do the works, shall be saved, according to His word: “Not every one who saith to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven."

So, are you saying that it is works that saves and not faith? Please explain further, thanks.

I didn't say it, Justin Martyr did.

He is saying that one who professes Christ but lives according to the world is not a Christian, only those who profess and live according to Christ are Christians.

lendtay
Oct 30th 2008, 03:19 AM
Ok, thanks for the explanation.

awestruckchild
Oct 30th 2008, 03:42 AM
Hi paintdiva,

Which do you think is a more reliable source: How I think or feel, or what the Bible says?

Well, I guess I would have to go with neither of the above....
I mean, I can't possibly just go by what the bible says because the only way I understand it is by the Holy Spirits help. I mean, literally in a human way, I can reason out a lot of it but that is the way that doesn't really help me much, using my own reckoning.

I mean, who am I to even attempt using my own brain to understand the Spirit if all the men way back who spent their whole lives work on study of scripture were told by Jesus that their mistake was they didn't know scripture! I mean, geez, I'm sure they had more scripture memorized than I'll ever have!

awestruckchild
Oct 30th 2008, 05:13 AM
How do you know you received the Spirit?

Ah, Butch-
I would really like to share that with you-trying to explain how you know-but I've really come to find that if someone has to ask that question, they aren't going to be able to understand a word I say.

Veretax
Oct 30th 2008, 11:31 AM
Can you show this from Scripture?

First I should mention that in my devotion this morning I was reading about being an authentic Christian, and its interesting that the writer of the devotional I am going through would mention the difference between head and heart, and that some western Christians have the heart defined incorrectly, that it isn't emotions. Oddly, I agree with that sentiment, when I was saved, I went from simply knowing facts as if I could recite them in History Class, to knowing something to be absolutely true. It was a different aspect of the mind technically, a part of the inner me that is who I am.

I've always used the example that before I was saved I knew a lot of scripture, I knew in my mind, but it took Guard breaking through my heart, and opening my eyes before I could truly trust him. Not that my emotions had any bearing on why I came to Christ. They didn't, but the core of my being, the part that defines the inner me had to be brought to know those facts as truth, and not simply facts to recite.

Now, you asked for some scriptures, how about these:

Eph 1:13-14 - We are sealed by the Holy Spirit as a Guarantee of Inheritance:

13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.



Look at what was Promised in the OT:

Ezekiel 36:24-28

24 I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land.
25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.
26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.
28 Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God.

God promised to take away their heart of stone, to give them one of flesh (a softer heart that could respond), and would implant his Spirit in them.

2 Cor 5:7 - Believers are a new creation in Christ:

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.


Colos 3:9-10 We have put off the old man and his deeds and put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge....

9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,

Lastly

1 John 5:10-13 - John tells us that we can know that we have eternal life. How? We will know because the Holy Spirit is within us as a Witness.

10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 02:12 PM
First I should mention that in my devotion this morning I was reading about being an authentic Christian, and its interesting that the writer of the devotional I am going through would mention the difference between head and heart, and that some western Christians have the heart defined incorrectly, that it isn't emotions. Oddly, I agree with that sentiment, when I was saved, I went from simply knowing facts as if I could recite them in History Class, to knowing something to be absolutely true. It was a different aspect of the mind technically, a part of the inner me that is who I am.

I've always used the example that before I was saved I knew a lot of scripture, I knew in my mind, but it took Guard breaking through my heart, and opening my eyes before I could truly trust him. Not that my emotions had any bearing on why I came to Christ. They didn't, but the core of my being, the part that defines the inner me had to be brought to know those facts as truth, and not simply facts to recite.

Now, you asked for some scriptures, how about these:

Eph 1:13-14 - We are sealed by the Holy Spirit as a Guarantee of Inheritance:

13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.



Look at what was Promised in the OT:

Ezekiel 36:24-28

24 I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land.
25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.
26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.
28 Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God.

God promised to take away their heart of stone, to give them one of flesh (a softer heart that could respond), and would implant his Spirit in them.

2 Cor 5:7 - Believers are a new creation in Christ:

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.


Colos 3:9-10 We have put off the old man and his deeds and put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge....

9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,

Lastly

1 John 5:10-13 - John tells us that we can know that we have eternal life. How? We will know because the Holy Spirit is within us as a Witness.

10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

Hi Veretax,

In the above verses I highlighted the words believe and new man and new creation. All of these speak of being "in Christ" what does it mean to be in Christ? Doesn't that include baptism?

The prophecy in Ezekiel, look at the verse previous,


Ezekiel 36:22 ( KJV ) 22Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.

Teke
Oct 30th 2008, 02:23 PM
I'm sorry, but baptism does NOT save. It is essentially an outward profession, of submission to the Church and to Christ, an act of obedience, and paintdiva, I encourage you to consider getting baptized. You know in your heart that your account is settled with God, all that remains is to humble yourself and become identified with the church through baptism. Not that baptism saves, it doesn't, but I do believe that even though it was years after I was saved, that God poured out an extra measure of grace and blessing when I finally submitted to be baptized according to the scriptures. I think it is very important for every Christian to be baptized, but it is not under any circumstance a requirement for salvation.


You see baptism as identifying one with the church and not as a literal placement into the Body of Christ?
If one is not literally part of the Body were do they stand but outside. Jesus words were "the kingdom is within". Revelation depicts that which is outside, "For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." (Rev. 22:15)
Rev. 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

John146
Oct 30th 2008, 02:31 PM
Hi Eric,

I agree! God commands all men to repent and believe the gospel. It is a COMMAND! Do fallen man obey God's commands? Did the nation obey God's command? The fact that fallen man does not obey His commands doesn't mean there will not be consquences for disobedience. Man is without excuse, no man will be able to stand before God at the judgment saying, "but you gave me a command I could not obey." Man is not condemned because he does not obey God's commands. Man is condemned because he has no substitute for His disobedience/his sinfulness. Every man can and should obey God, but no fallen man will because every fallen man loves his sin more than God. Unless God makes man willing, no man will come to Christ for life. There is no reason for a person to be condemned for not believing in Christ (John 3:18) if he/she never had the ability to repent and believe in Christ. God doesn't command people to do something that they have no ability to do.


The verse in Heb 12:2 specifies "JESUS"...the author and finisher of faith. I'm glad you noticed that "our" does not belong in the verse. This helps to confirm my point, that saving faith that Jesus authors and finishes is not ours in the sense that it is faith we naturally have.

Many Blessings,
RWThere are plenty of other verses that show that it is our faith, Roger. Are you going to try to explain away all of these as well?

Hebrews 10
22Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised )

1 John 5
4For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
5Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

Matthew 9
28And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.
29Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.

Romans 1:8
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

1 Cor 15
14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

2 Cor 1:24
Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.

Eph 1:15
Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

Col 1
3We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,
4Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,

Col 2
5For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
6As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:

1 Thess 3
7Therefore, brethren, we were comforted over you in all our affliction and distress by your faith:
8For now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord.

James 1
2My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
3Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.

1 Peter 1
7That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
8Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

Romans 4
3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Matthew 8:13
13And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

John 3
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 20
29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Acts 8
13Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Eph 1
12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Matthew 8
5And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
6And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
7And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
8The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
9For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
10When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Notice that these verses speak of the trying of one's faith. If it is the faith of Christ and not our own faith, why would it need to be tried and tested?

Also, we can see that by not believing in Christ a person is condemned. Why would a person be condemned for not doing something that they supposedly never had any ability to do? That makes no sense at all. We're talking about people having to spend eternity in the lake of fire because that would be what God wanted for them if He didn't ever give them the ability to repent and believe in Christ.

Then look at the last passage from Matthew 8. Why would Jesus marvel at the man's faith if we supposedly have little to no faith of our own? There would be no reason for Jesus to marvel at someone's faith if it was given to them.

Veretax
Oct 30th 2008, 03:02 PM
First:

Eph 1:13-14 - We are sealed by the Holy Spirit as a Guarantee of Inheritance:

13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Let’s be clear, they trusted after they heard the word of truth, the gospel of salvation, and then having believed were sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise. It does not say having believed and been baptized, it simply says having believed. However, I argue that the true baptism takes place at that moment, and that is the holy spirit that comes into our hearts, that seal of promise, that is the baptism.

1 John 5:10-13 - John tells us that we can know that we have eternal life. How? We will know because the Holy Spirit is within us as a Witness.

10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

Again he who believes has the witness in himself. It does say he who has believed and been baptized, nor does it say he who has been baptized. Water baptism does not save, but is the response of obedience to Christ’s command signifying our profession of faith, and submission to his will for our lives.
You obviously disagree with me, but I don’t see baptism in those verses, now the one in Ezekiel is interesting, but clearly from that passage Ezekiel is saying that God is doing the cleansing, not man through water baptism.

Yes I’ve seen the prior verse, I’ve read the chapters around it, and I find it interesting that this was a promise given to Israel, not for Israel’s sake, but for God’s names sake, so not sure what point you were trying to make there.


You see baptism as identifying one with the church and not as a literal placement into the Body of Christ?
If one is not literally part of the Body were do they stand but outside. Jesus words were "the kingdom is within". Revelation depicts that which is outside, "For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." (Rev. 22:15)
Rev. 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

There is a difference between the single, solitary, one universal church into which all believers are joined in Christ, and the local Church. Water baptism is a sign to men, just as circumcision was, and just as communion/Lord’s Supper/eucharist/(whatever you want to call it) is even to t his day.

Christ knows from the day his spirit is implanted into a Christian that he is his, the seal and sign is the Holy Spirit, but it is not always readily apparent to man, we can’t see the heart, only God can. This is why I believe water Baptism is significant in identify with the local assembly, both as a profession, and a sign of obedience and submission to Christ and his Church. There are two realities here, one is spiritual, the other realized in the physical realm, but baptism does not save any more than membership in any particular local church saves.

When anyone says you must be baptized, clearly they are always talking about water baptism. That is all we as human beings and Christians can administer, only Christ can give the Spirit, and he does so at the moment of Salvation, which I believe happens at the moment of Faith and belief on Christ. The analogy of water of life, is not speaking about literal water, its speaking of the word of God who is Christ (go review the story of the woman at the well and you should then understand what I am saying.)

(I'm not sure why its copying the bold for everything, I was trying to maintain the format. sighs)

Teke
Oct 30th 2008, 03:45 PM
There is a difference between the single, solitary, one universal church into which all believers are joined in Christ, and the local Church.

That is not evident to me.


Water baptism is a sign to men, just as circumcision was, and just as communion/Lord’s Supper/eucharist/(whatever you want to call it) is even to t his day.

Christ knows from the day his spirit is implanted into a Christian that he is his, the seal and sign is the Holy Spirit, but it is not always readily apparent to man, we can’t see the heart, only God can. This is why I believe water Baptism is significant in identify with the local assembly, both as a profession, and a sign of obedience and submission to Christ and his Church. There are two realities here, one is spiritual, the other realized in the physical realm, but baptism does not save any more than membership in any particular local church saves.

When anyone says you must be baptized, clearly they are always talking about water baptism. That is all we as human beings and Christians can administer, only Christ can give the Spirit, and he does so at the moment of Salvation, which I believe happens at the moment of Faith and belief on Christ. The analogy of water of life, is not speaking about literal water, its speaking of the word of God who is Christ (go review the story of the woman at the well and you should then understand what I am saying.)

(I'm not sure why its copying the bold for everything, I was trying to maintain the format. sighs)

I think I see our difference in understanding. You see a "state of grace" where I see, preparation to see Christ.
I'm familiar with western thinking from the Roman church on this subject (state of grace), albeit not in the form you present. The Roman model saw salvation as the act of dying in a state of grace.

IMHO Jesus message was one of preparation, "repent for the kingdom". IOW prepare yourselves for the kingdom. Human life is one of preparation. We prepare both body and soul for this. Baptism prepares the person to become a proper receptacle for the fullness of grace.

"...since man is of twofold nature, soul and body, the purification [of baptism] also is two-fold, the one incorporeal for the incorporeal part, and the other bodily for the body: the water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul; that we may draw near unto God, 'having our heart sprinkled' by the Spirit, 'and our body washed with pure water' (Heb. 10:22). When going down, therefore, into the water, think not of the bare element, but look for salvation by the power of the Holy Spirit: for without both you cannot possibly be made perfect. It is not I that say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter: for He says, 'Except a man be born anew', and He adds these words, 'of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God".
St. Cyril of Jerusalem

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 03:55 PM
First:

Eph 1:13-14 - We are sealed by the Holy Spirit as a Guarantee of Inheritance:

13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Let’s be clear, they trusted after they heard the word of truth, the gospel of salvation, and then having believed were sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise. It does not say having believed and been baptized, it simply says having believed. However, I argue that the true baptism takes place at that moment, and that is the holy spirit that comes into our hearts, that seal of promise, that is the baptism.

1 John 5:10-13 - John tells us that we can know that we have eternal life. How? We will know because the Holy Spirit is within us as a Witness.

10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

Again he who believes has the witness in himself. It does say he who has believed and been baptized, nor does it say he who has been baptized. Water baptism does not save, but is the response of obedience to Christ’s command signifying our profession of faith, and submission to his will for our lives.
You obviously disagree with me, but I don’t see baptism in those verses, now the one in Ezekiel is interesting, but clearly from that passage Ezekiel is saying that God is doing the cleansing, not man through water baptism.

Yes I’ve seen the prior verse, I’ve read the chapters around it, and I find it interesting that this was a promise given to Israel, not for Israel’s sake, but for God’s names sake, so not sure what point you were trying to make there.



There is a difference between the single, solitary, one universal church into which all believers are joined in Christ, and the local Church. Water baptism is a sign to men, just as circumcision was, and just as communion/Lord’s Supper/eucharist/(whatever you want to call it) is even to t his day.

Christ knows from the day his spirit is implanted into a Christian that he is his, the seal and sign is the Holy Spirit, but it is not always readily apparent to man, we can’t see the heart, only God can. This is why I believe water Baptism is significant in identify with the local assembly, both as a profession, and a sign of obedience and submission to Christ and his Church. There are two realities here, one is spiritual, the other realized in the physical realm, but baptism does not save any more than membership in any particular local church saves.

When anyone says you must be baptized, clearly they are always talking about water baptism. That is all we as human beings and Christians can administer, only Christ can give the Spirit, and he does so at the moment of Salvation, which I believe happens at the moment of Faith and belief on Christ. The analogy of water of life, is not speaking about literal water, its speaking of the word of God who is Christ (go review the story of the woman at the well and you should then understand what I am saying.)

(I'm not sure why its copying the bold for everything, I was trying to maintain the format. sighs)

Hi Veretax,

In the verse from Ephesians it says, after you heard the gospel of your salvation. When the Scriptures speak of believing in or on Christ, they are speaking of believing the gospel. What is the gospel? It is the gospel that Jesus taught. The gospel of the kingdom, the gospel of the kingdom Includes water baptism. Therefore, when Scripture says believe, water baptism is understood as part of believing.


Matthew 28:19-20 ( KJV ) 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This is the gopsel, to teach whatsoever Jesus has commanded them, and to baptize.

John146
Oct 30th 2008, 04:11 PM
Hi Veretax,

In the verse from Ephesians it says, after you heard the gospel of your salvation. When the Scriptures speak of believing in or on Christ, they are speaking of believing the gospel. What is the gospel? It is the gospel that Jesus taught. The gospel of the kingdom, the gospel of the kingdom Includes water baptism. Therefore, when Scripture says believe, water baptism is understood as part of believing.


Matthew 28:19-20 ( KJV ) 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This is the gopsel, to teach whatsoever Jesus has commanded them, and to baptize.Apparently, Paul didn't think so.

1 Cor 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

If water baptism was a part of the gospel, then Paul must have been pretty confused. It would be like him saying "Christ sent me not to preach that Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day, but to preach the gospel".

Veretax
Oct 30th 2008, 04:13 PM
That is not evident to me.


I think I see our difference in understanding. You see a "state of grace" where I see, preparation to see Christ.
I'm familiar with western thinking from the Roman church on this subject (state of grace), albeit not in the form you present. The Roman model saw salvation as the act of dying in a state of grace.

IMHO Jesus message was one of preparation, "repent for the kingdom". IOW prepare yourselves for the kingdom. Human life is one of preparation. We prepare both body and soul for this. Baptism prepares the person to become a proper receptacle for the fullness of grace.

"...since man is of twofold nature, soul and body, the purification [of baptism] also is two-fold, the one incorporeal for the incorporeal part, and the other bodily for the body: the water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul; that we may draw near unto God, 'having our heart sprinkled' by the Spirit, 'and our body washed with pure water' (Heb. 10:22). When going down, therefore, into the water, think not of the bare element, but look for salvation by the power of the Holy Spirit: for without both you cannot possibly be made perfect. It is not I that say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter: for He says, 'Except a man be born anew', and He adds these words, 'of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God".
St. Cyril of Jerusalem


As it happens I have a neighbor who is of greek ancestry, and I find it fascinating when he tells me about the greek orthodox church. However, let me ask you a few questions. What is the difference between water baptism, ceremonial washing as found by the priests in the OT law, and we who regularly shower and bathe?

I see in the example of the woman at the well the following being demonstrated by jesus


John 4:10-11

10 Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." 11 The woman said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water?..


Christ is talking about the Living water, and it confuses this samaritan woman...

John 4:12-14
12 Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?" 13 Jesus answered and said to her, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life." Not only does Christ say a man who gets this 'living water' shall not thirst, but he says that those who partake of it will have a living well of water springing up within him unto ever lasting life.Christ then asks the woman some questions, and gets to the heart of worship.John 4:15-22
15 The woman said to Him, "Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw." 16 Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here." 17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have well said, 'I have no husband,' 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly." 19 The woman said to Him, "Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship." 21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. Christ is telling her that salvation is of the Jews, but that a time will come when worship won't be happening in the temple... he continues:

John 4:23-26

23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." 25 The woman said to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming" (who is called Christ). "When He comes, He will tell us all things." 26 Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am He."


The woman at the well recognizes the allusion to the Messianic prophecy and identifies it correctly, but she didn't realize that it was Jesus in front of her that was the Messiah.

It is at that point the disciples arrived.

John 4:27
27 And at this point His disciples came, and they marveled that He talked with a woman; yet no one said, "What do You seek?" or, "Why are You talking with her?" 28 The woman then left her waterpot, went her way into the city, and said to the men, 29 "Come, see a Man who told me all things that I ever did. Could this be the Christ?" 30 Then they went out of the city and came to Him. 31 In the meantime His disciples urged Him, saying, "Rabbi, eat." 32 But He said to them, "I have food to eat of which you do not know." 33 Therefore the disciples said to one another, "Has anyone brought Him anything to eat?" 34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work. 35 Do you not say, 'There are still four months and then comes the harvest'? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are already white for harvest! 36 And he who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, that both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together. 37 For in this the saying is true: 'One sows and another reaps.' 38 I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored, and you have entered into their labors."


When Jesus says he has food to eat that they do not know, it puzzles the disciples, because they had went to get food for the physical needs. The point is clear, both the living water, and food that Christ speaks of here and the harvest, are spiritual harvests. The living water and the food is the word of God.

De 8:3 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=de+8:3&version=nkj&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1)So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.

Teke
Oct 30th 2008, 04:53 PM
Veretax, I don't negate the living water concept you demonstrate. Nor the OT references. But we are showing a difference of things here. In my view, everyone is in some state of grace, that being just by the existence of grace.
But the living water proceeds from the Font, and the Font is Christ. Jesus has a priesthood which also possesses this living water. So while you can get the living water, you aren't IN that priesthood if you aren't in His Body.

Just as ministers don't minister without preparation, so one doesn't become part of His priesthood without preparation as well. The OT example for such preparation included washing with water, which is not comparable to a regular bath we take or the ceremonial washings of the Jewish priests. It is a one time event that places one into the Body which is His priesthood.

Exd 29:4 And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water.

Notice this isn't the ceremonial washings of the priests which were of their hands and feet. This washing is of their whole body to consecrate them to God.

Exd 29:5 And thou shalt take the garments, and put upon Aaron the coat, and the robe of the ephod, and the ephod, and the breastplate, and gird him with the curious girdle of the ephod:

Exd 29:6 And thou shalt put the mitre upon his head, and put the holy crown upon the mitre.

Exd 29:7 Then shalt thou take the anointing oil, and pour [it] upon his head, and anoint him.

Exd 29:8 And thou shalt bring his sons, and put coats upon them.

Exd 29:9 And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons.

This was not done to all the people. Only those of the priesthood.
In Christ's priesthood all are invited.

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1Pe 2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

To "shew forth" is to bring forth that living water which comes from the Font, of which His priesthood is part.

IOW we're not just talking about a drink of water here, as the living water is freely given to all. Priesthood demands more than you asking for a drink of water.

With this we should understand why all aren't able as well. Nor should they be forced or coerced into doing so. As it is a serious matter that should demand our consideration.

So it is no strange thing that all are not baptized. But it is error to say that they are part of His Body, which is a priesthood, when they are not.
Aaron was surely circumcised (meaning his heart was prepared) before he became a priest. :)

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 04:56 PM
While I agree that what the bible said is more important than emotional context, let's be reasonable here. Salvation is by faith through grace, and that not of works lest any should boast. I'm sorry, but baptism does NOT save. It is essentially an outward profession, of submission to the Church and to Christ, an act of obedience, and paintdiva, I encourage you to consider getting baptized. You know in your heart that your account is settled with God, all that remains is to humble yourself and become identified with the church through baptism. Not that baptism saves, it doesn't, but I do believe that even though it was years after I was saved, that God poured out an extra measure of grace and blessing when I finally submitted to be baptized according to the scriptures. I think it is very important for every Christian to be baptized, but it is not under any circumstance a requirement for salvation.

Hi Veretax,

Can you show me where the Bible says that baptism is "essentially an outward profession?"

The Bible says baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), after which we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 22:16 shows also that baptism is involved in the washing away of sins. 1 Peter 3:21 says baptism now saves you.

How can you say it is merely an "outward profession," when the Bible shows that something spiritual happens when a person with faith in the power of the working of God is baptized (Col. 2:12)?

RogerW
Oct 30th 2008, 04:57 PM
Greetings Butch,

You tell us you follow the doctrine of the early church fathers because you are convinced that the closer you are/were to the time of Christ and His apostles gives you greater understanding and less likely to teach contrary to the doctrine of Christ and His apostles.

You've shown us writings that tell us the early fathers taught that we must first believe, then be baptized and at baptism we receive the Holy Spirit. The early fathers also taught that infants must also be baptized, for if they should die in infancy without the benefit of baptism they would NOT go to heaven. This was a very prevalent doctrine of the time due to the high infant mortality rate. This doctrine gave great comfort and assurance to grieving parents, knowing that since their infant had been baptized he/she was assured eternal life.

Do you see a problem with this doctrine? If beliving is necessary (and it is) before baptism and receiving of the Holy Spirit, how could they teach that baptized infants are guaranteed acceptance with God and eternal life? What is your belief regarding babies dying in infancy? If you follow the doctrine of the early fathers then God has another salvation plan for infants, but the Bible does not show us this. Are all dying babies saved, or are all dying babies lost? Since believing is necessary can any baby be saved?

Blessings,
RW

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 04:58 PM
I stand corrected. Thank you. Memory is fading. :)

After re-reading my post, I hope I did not sound short or blunt in my post to you. I was writing quickly, and did not mean to sound sharp or anything. God bless you!

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 05:05 PM
Well, I guess I would have to go with neither of the above....
I mean, I can't possibly just go by what the bible says because the only way I understand it is by the Holy Spirits help. I mean, literally in a human way, I can reason out a lot of it but that is the way that doesn't really help me much, using my own reckoning.

I mean, who am I to even attempt using my own brain to understand the Spirit if all the men way back who spent their whole lives work on study of scripture were told by Jesus that their mistake was they didn't know scripture! I mean, geez, I'm sure they had more scripture memorized than I'll ever have!

Paintdiva, did you know that God says we can understand His word? Not only that, but he expects us to!

Paul told both the Ephesians and the Corinthians that they could read what he was writing, and understand the mystery of Christ:

Eph 3:3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already,
Eph 3:4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),

2Co 1:13 For we are not writing any other things to you than what you read or understand. Now I trust you will understand, even to the end
2Co 1:14 (as also you have understood us in part), that we are your boast as you also are ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Paul also said that faith comes by hearing the word of God, and that man could not hear unless someone spoke the Word:

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF PEACE, WHO BRING GLAD TIDINGS OF GOOD THINGS!"
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?"
Rom 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

The gospel, which is contained in the New Testament, is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). If the Holy Spirit has to come to you and make you able to read and understand the gospel message in order for you to be saved, does that mean you are saved before you even hear the gospel?

Even Cornelius had to have a gospel preacher come to him and speak to him "words by which you and all your household will be saved" (Acts 11:14).

Teke
Oct 30th 2008, 05:09 PM
The early fathers also taught that infants must also be baptized, for if they should die in infancy without the benefit of baptism they would NOT go to heaven. This was a very prevalent doctrine of the time due to the high infant mortality rate. This doctrine gave great comfort and assurance to grieving parents, knowing that since their infant had been baptized he/she was assured eternal life.

As I commented to Veretax in a previous post, the "state of grace" doctrine developed in the western church (RC). To generalize the teachings of the early fathers like this is an error. As there was, and is to present day, a schism between the east and western church. The western church (Rome) decided to deviate from the rest of the churches in many of it's doctrines. In their zeal of independence and liberty they went astray.

We walk a narrow path.

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 05:12 PM
Apparently, Paul didn't think so.

1 Cor 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

If water baptism was a part of the gospel, then Paul must have been pretty confused. It would be like him saying "Christ sent me not to preach that Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day, but to preach the gospel".

Now, in 1 Corinthians Paul was not saying baptism was not part of man's reaction to the gospel. Look at 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Paul says the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

By your own argument, you would be necessarily saying belief is not necessary, since Paul said he was only sent to preach the gospel.

You see, the gospel is what is preached, man's response is what happens in reaction to hearing that message. Believe (John 3:16), repentance (Acts 2:38), public confession (Matt. 10:32-33) and baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16) are commanded responses to hearing the gospel.

For those interested in Paul's baptismal theology, you might want to check out my website article here:

http://the7ones.com/2007/05/30/paul-and-baptism/

Thanks, and God bless!

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 05:20 PM
Apparently, Paul didn't think so.

1 Cor 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

If water baptism was a part of the gospel, then Paul must have been pretty confused. It would be like him saying "Christ sent me not to preach that Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day, but to preach the gospel".

So, Paul's job was not to baptized, please explain how that means baptism is unnecessary. Using you logic in an automobile plant I could say I was not hired to put on the wheels on I was hired to install the engine. Tell me now, does that mean the wheels are not necessary???

Here's one for you. If Paul did not think Baptism was necessary, why did He baptize the Phillipian jailer in the middle of the night???


Acts 16:28-34 ( KJV ) 28But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. 29Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 34And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.


What is "the word of the Lord"??? It is the Gospel of the kingdom of God. The gospel Jesus told his disciples to take into all the world. He said teach them all I have commanded you and baptize them. That is the gospel of the kingdom, the word of the Lord.

RogerW
Oct 30th 2008, 05:24 PM
Greetings Veretax,

What you see as semantics, I see as serious error in doctrine. The moment we begin to think we can add anything to the work of Christ in salvation, then we make the grace of God dependent upon man's cooperation. This makes the grace of God resistable, and the Lord is not sovereign if grace is resistable. Christ tells us He came to serve, not to be served. But your doctrine implies that Christ needs our help to save His people. The fact that we are able to respond to Christ after hearing the gospel is not of ourselves, but of His power to us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power.

Eph 1:19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

The same power needed to raise Christ from the dead is the same power which God exerts in us. The power necessary for raising Christ from the dead is the same power necessary to convert a sinner. This power is of God alone, and none of us.

Eph 1:20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places

Before our conversion, we were "dead in trespasses and sins;" that we had no spiritual life; that we were the "children of wrath;" that we were raised up from our death in sin by the same power which raised the Lord Jesus from the grave, and that we are wholly saved by grace alone.

Blessings,
RW

Friend of I AM
Oct 30th 2008, 05:39 PM
Steven, I've been over this already. I have shown how the Flood was the antitype of baptism. Noah was saved physically in the flood, we are saved Spiritually in water baptism. I have given an overwhelming amount of evidential support for water baptism in this thread, yet many choose to reject it. No one has shown where the evidence I presented was wrong, they just keep repeating the same verses over and over. If you think that my position is wrong please go back to my posts look at the evidence and show me how it is wrong. If you can show it is wrong, I am all ears.

While I don't agree entirely with your stance, I appreciate your input in regarding the matter. Whatever your faith allows you to believe continue you in it as God is a judge of the heart and intention. I pray that you and everyone else at some point come to an agreement on this matter.

RogerW
Oct 30th 2008, 05:40 PM
I don't know if anyone will want my input here and I don't think I have posted in this thread yet, though I've read most of it.

I am very interested in this discussion because I have never been water baptized but I have, without a shadow of a doubt, received the Holy Spirit.

Because of this, I have no other way to look at this other than a water baptism is an outer sign, like a sacrament, of what takes place in us spiritually.

I mean, if it was a requirement, why on earth would I have received the Spirit and learned to know what His voice is without one?

Greeting Diva,

Welcome to the discussion. Is the fact that you have never received the sacrament of baptism because you do not belong to any church?

Since you have been following the decussion, you are aware that I believe Scripture teaches that baptism is NOT a requirement for salvation (which is why you know with certainty that you have received the Spirit), but it is a commandment the Lord left us with. Why is it so important that we belong, through water baptism to a covenant body, or a faithful church in the world? Because when Christ ascended into heaven He gave gifts to His church. This gifts are a blessing to all who come into the covenant body; the church. Even those coming into the church through baptism who are never born again receive of many blessings simply by being in membership in His external kingdom or body or church. What kind of gifts? First and foremost He sent His Holy Spirit to teach and guide His elect church unto all truth. He gave the church the gifts of prophecy and faith, as well as gifts of apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues, and the gift of charity (love). There are many blessings when belonging to His external body. If you don't belong to a church at this time, I would encourage you to seek and find a faithful church and become a member of that body through the sacrament of baptism.

Many Blessings,
RW

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 06:00 PM
Greetings Butch,

You tell us you follow the doctrine of the early church fathers because you are convinced that the closer you are/were to the time of Christ and His apostles gives you greater understanding and less likely to teach contrary to the doctrine of Christ and His apostles.

You've shown us writings that tell us the early fathers taught that we must first believe, then be baptized and at baptism we receive the Holy Spirit. The early fathers also taught that infants must also be baptized, for if they should die in infancy without the benefit of baptism they would NOT go to heaven. This was a very prevalent doctrine of the time due to the high infant mortality rate. This doctrine gave great comfort and assurance to grieving parents, knowing that since their infant had been baptized he/she was assured eternal life.

Do you see a problem with this doctrine? If beliving is necessary (and it is) before baptism and receiving of the Holy Spirit, how could they teach that baptized infants are guaranteed acceptance with God and eternal life? What is your belief regarding babies dying in infancy? If you follow the doctrine of the early fathers then God has another salvation plan for infants, but the Bible does not show us this. Are all dying babies saved, or are all dying babies lost? Since believing is necessary can any baby be saved?

Blessings,
RW

Good points Roger,

Let me first clarify the early church. I don't follow the early church, I use the writings of the early church to expound on Scripture. The farther you get from the apostles more chance of error entering into your doctrine. Therefore, I give more weight to what is said by those who were directly in contact with the apostles, men like Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome. These men had direct interaction with the apostles, they traveled and spoke with the apostles, they saw how the apostles lived out their teachings. The next generation gets a little less weight given to what they say. And this continues as they get farther from the apostles. The other area I use concerning hte Ante-Nicene writers is if they are in agreement across the entire region.The Scriptures are my ultimate authority, they are where doctrine comes from. However, when we read the Scriptures, we are reading works written 2000 years ago, they were written in Greek, in a different culture. How are we to understand what the Scriptures are talking about if we have no idea of what was happening at the time they were written. Remember many of the letters were written to address specific problems that the churches were dealing with. How can we understand the answer to those problems, if we don't know what the question was? Suppose you picked up a letter in my house that said "I am going to give you $100 dollars, Does that mean everyone who reads that letter is going to get $100? Does it mean Tom will get $100? Or George? You have to know who I intended to send the letter to in order to know who was going to get the money. We have the same thing with Scripture, we have to who and what and where. These early Church writers tell us who and what and where. For instance,


1 Timothy 5:9 ( KJV ) 9Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,

I have seen this verse used to say that the church should not take widows in the congregation who are under 60 years old. Is that what this means? It appears so, doesn't that go against what the Bible says about honoring widows? So which one do we do? Do we honor them, or do we exclude them form the congregation? Well, neither, because when you look back at the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, you will find that the early church had a ministry which was started by the apostle Paul, in which there was a group of Godly widows who would minister to the needs of the church in prayer. This is what Paul is speaking of when He says not to let a widow under 60 into the number. So, without the background information supplied by the Ante-Nicene writers it can be hard to understand some of the Scriptures. Also the books of Mathew and Mark who wrote them and how do we know? We accept them as inspired but they did not sign their names to them. We know that the books were written by Matthew and Mark because the Ante-Nicene writers tell that they wrote them.

Actually you mention infant baptism, that is not the only place I disagree with the early church regarding baptism. As they got farther from the apostles error did creep in. I do not agree with them on infant baptism. I believe this started around the time of Cyprian which would be around the year 200 a.d. I also disagree with them as they began to let time come between the the profession and the baptism. I believe one should be baptized immediately as the Scriptures show. Again, the Ante-Nicene writers are only extra support of what the Scriptures say. If the Ante-Nicene writers say something opposed to Scripture they are wrong. And they were worng on some things


Regarding babies, I' ll just say briefly here because I don't want to derail the thread. I believe all babies are saved because Paul said where there is no law sin is not imputed. It is more complicated than that, but I don't want to derail this thread. I you want to start another we can discuss this.

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 06:02 PM
The moment we begin to think we can add anything to the work of Christ in salvation, then we make the grace of God dependent upon man's cooperation. This makes the grace of God resistable, and the Lord is not sovereign if grace is resistable.

This is the "crux" of the matter, if you'll pardon my pun.

Where do you find that a totally sovereign God is no longer sovereign if he allows freedom of choice?

For instance, if I own a grocery store, I am totally sovereign in the operation of the store. But if I appoint a manager to oversee aisles 1-4 of the store, does that mean I am no longer totally sovereign? Is it not still my store?

God has given man freewill. Yes, His grace is resistible. If you say His grace is not resistible, then you fall into the error of saying God created some men who are helplessly bound for hell, whether they want to be or not.

RogerW
Oct 30th 2008, 06:08 PM
There is no reason for a person to be condemned for not believing in Christ (John 3:18) if he/she never had the ability to repent and believe in Christ. God doesn't command people to do something that they have no ability to do.

There are plenty of other verses that show that it is our faith, Roger. Are you going to try to explain away all of these as well?

Hi Eric,

I hate to sound like a broken record to you, but...we are not condemned for not believing in Christ...we are condemned because we are left in our sins. Condemned because we have no one to be our sin covering. Without Christ we die in our sins, and are therefore condemned, not because we sin, but because we are without Christ. If our sin is what condemns us, then even those in Christ would still be condemned, because we don't stop sinning when we are born again.

I don't disagree with you that every believer has faith, and that his/her faith must work after we become saved. What I disagree with you about is where this faith comes from, and how this faith continues to work through us after we are born again.

Faith that is tried and tested becomes stronger, when it looks more and more to Christ rather than to self.

Man is without excuse, because every man knows of God and His divine attributes. But even though they know God they choose to supress the knowledge of God, and will not come to Him for life. Every man, born of Adam will not come to Christ for life unless he/she is enabled by the power of the Word and Holy Spirit. Fallen man refuses to come to Christ, because they love their sin more than they love the Lord. It's not that they cannot, it's that the will not! There are separated from God, and spiritually dead in trespasses and sins...therefore it takes God to reach down to man to give them life through His power. We cannot reach up to God, He MUST reach down to us, or no man will receive eternal life in Christ.

The Lord is more than willing to save every man....BUT, no man wants His salvation, so unless God supernatually changes the heart of some men, no men will be saved.

Christ marvelled in Mt 8 that the centurion, seeing himself as unworthy, believes, with incredible faith, that Christ can heal with only a word. Of couse Christ would marvel because He compares the unworthy centurion, who knows His power to the children of the kingdom (Israel), who should have known Him, and recognized His great power and did not. This is why Christ says, "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel."

Many Blessings,
RW

drew
Oct 30th 2008, 06:13 PM
The moment we begin to think we can add anything to the work of Christ in salvation, then we make the grace of God dependent upon man's cooperation. This makes the grace of God resistable, and the Lord is not sovereign if grace is resistable.
When someone makes the argument that "if its all God's grace, then there can be no human 'co-operation', no matter how miniscule", I think that the very concept of "grace" is being abused. A hard rigid mathematical, binary, kind of mind-set is brought to what, I suggest, is actually a concept which is actually much more fluid and ambiguous.

What I am trying to say is this: the way that the term "grace" is sometimes used, at least in english western cultures, indeed allows for some degree of co-operation. We would, I suggest, affirm that the giving of any gift, even if freely and wilfully accepted is, in fact, still seen to fall under the concept of "grace".

Unlike mathematical concepts, linguistic concepts often have a relatively broad “semantic range” (range of possible meanings). In the case of the concept of “grace”, that range includes, at one end, the notion that there can be no co-operation on the part of the one who receives grace. Fine.

But let’s not pretend that the range of possible meanings of “grace” excludes the more complicated case where the recipient of grace does indeed play some very limited role. We use the word “grace” in this more complicated mode all the time in everyday life.

At the risk of seeming cynical, I will assert that the Calvinist frequently simply “lays claim” to a specific part of the semantic range of the concept and works from there, their arguments building on and leveraging this particular, selective, interpretation on what the term “grace” actually means.

If you commit to the position that the concept “grace”, by its very definition, rules out human co-operation, then of course the Calvinist position is easily established. But we all know that language is more sophisticated, subtle, and ambiguous than that. It is really beyond question that the word “grace” has an effective range of meanings that include senses in which the recipient of grace actually participates in some sense.

And an exactly analogous argument applies in respect to the concept of sovereignty.

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 06:16 PM
While I don't agree entirely with your stance, I appreciate your input in regarding the matter. Whatever your faith allows you to believe continue you in it as God is a judge of the heart and intention. I pray that you and everyone else at some point come to an agreement on this matter.

Hi Friend of I Am,

Thank you,

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 06:22 PM
When someone makes the argument that "if its all God's grace, then there can be no human 'co-operation', no matter how miniscule", I think that the very concept of "grace" is being abused. A hard rigid mathematical, binary, kind of mind-set is brought to what, I suggest, is actually a concept which is actually much more fluid and ambiguous.

What I am trying to say is this: the way that the term "grace" is sometimes used, at least in english western cultures, indeed allows for some degree of co-operation. We would, I suggest, affirm that the giving of any gift, even if freely and wilfully accepted is, in fact, still seen to fall under the concept of "grace".

Unlike mathematical concepts, linguistic concepts often have a relatively broad “semantic range” (range of possible meanings). In the case of the concept of “grace”, that range includes, at one end, the notion that there can be no co-operation on the part of the one who receives grace. Fine.

But let’s not pretend that the range of possible meanings of “grace” excludes the more complicated case where the recipient of grace does indeed play some very limited role. We use the word “grace” in this more complicated mode all the time in everyday life.

At the risk of seeming cynical, I will assert that the Calvinist frequently simply “lays claim” to a specific part of the semantic range of the concept and works from there, their arguments building on and leveraging this particular, selective, interpretation on what the term “grace” actually means.

If you commit to the position that the concept “grace”, by its very definition, rules out human co-operation, then of course the Calvinist position is easily established. But we all know that language is more sophisticated, subtle, and ambiguous than that. It is really beyond question that the word “grace” has an effective range of meanings that include senses in which the recipient of grace actually participates in some sense.

And an exactly analogous argument applies in respect to the concept of sovereignty.

Well said!:amen:

John146
Oct 30th 2008, 06:24 PM
So, Paul's job was not to baptized, please explain how that means baptism is unnecessary. Using you logic in an automobile plant I could say I was not hired to put on the wheels on I was hired to install the engine. Tell me now, does that mean the wheels are not necessary???

Here's one for you. If Paul did not think Baptism was necessary, why did He baptize the Phillipian jailer in the middle of the night???


Acts 16:28-34 ( KJV ) 28But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. 29Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 34And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.


What is "the word of the Lord"??? It is the Gospel of the kingdom of God. The gospel Jesus told his disciples to take into all the world. He said teach them all I have commanded you and baptize them. That is the gospel of the kingdom, the word of the Lord.Read that passage again. Was Paul's answer to the question "what must I do to be saved?" that they should "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized"? No. His answer was to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ". Faith is required for salvation. Of course, we're not talking about head knowledge here, but faith and trust in Christ as Lord and Savior. Symbolic rituals are not required for salvation. It is the baptism of the Spirit that places us into the body (1 Cor 12:13) and not water baptism.

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 06:32 PM
Read that passage again. Was Paul's answer to the question "what must I do to be saved?" that they should "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized"? No. His answer was to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ". Faith is required for salvation. Of course, we're not talking about head knowledge here, but faith and trust in Christ as Lord and Savior. Symbolic rituals are not required for salvation. It is the baptism of the Spirit that places us into the body (1 Cor 12:13) and not water baptism.

John146, was the baptism in Acts 2:38 "baptism of the Spirit" or water baptism?

I believe baptism in water of a believer is both a physical and spiritual even happening at once.

John146
Oct 30th 2008, 06:35 PM
Hi Eric,

I hate to sound like a broken record to you, but...we are not condemned for not believing in Christ...we are condemned because we are left in our sins. Condemned because we have no one to be our sin covering. Without Christ we die in our sins, and are therefore condemned, not because we sin, but because we are without Christ. If our sin is what condemns us, then even those in Christ would still be condemned, because we don't stop sinning when we are born again. This is where you are clearly wrong. How can you try to say that people aren't condemned for not believing in Christ when scripture clearly says otherwise?

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

How much more clear can it be?



I don't disagree with you that every believer has faith, and that his/her faith must work after we become saved. What I disagree with you about is where this faith comes from, and how this faith continues to work through us after we are born again.

Faith that is tried and tested becomes stronger, when it looks more and more to Christ rather than to self.

Man is without excuse, because every man knows of God and His divine attributes. But even though they know God they choose to supress the knowledge of God, and will not come to Him for life. Every man, born of Adam will not come to Christ for life unless he/she is enabled by the power of the Word and Holy Spirit. Fallen man refuses to come to Christ, because they love their sin more than they love the Lord. It's not that they cannot, it's that the will not!Is this really what you believe? Everything you've said about this before seemed to indicate that you believe that they do not or will not because they can not.



There are separated from God, and spiritually dead in trespasses and sins...therefore it takes God to reach down to man to give them life through His power. We cannot reach up to God, He MUST reach down to us, or no man will receive eternal life in Christ. See? Here you are saying that man cannot come to God while just a little bit earlier you said it isn't that he cannot but that he will not. You contradicted yourself.


The Lord is more than willing to save every man....BUT, no man wants His salvation, so unless God supernatually changes the heart or some men, no men will be saved. Scripture teaches that the Lord wants every man to repent (2 Peter 3:9, Acts 17:30) and to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). But you say that He does not give every man the ability to repent and be saved. Why would He desire something that He supposedly prevented from being possible?


Christ marvelled in Mt 8 that the centurion, seeing himself as unworthy, believes, with incredible faith, that Christ can heal with only a word. Of couse Christ would marvel because He compares the unworthy centurion, who knows His power to the children of the kingdom (Israel), who should have known Him, and recognized His great power and did not. This is why Christ says, "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." Sorry, what you said here doesn't make much sense. Did the centurion have his own faith or was it given to him?

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 06:46 PM
Read that passage again. Was Paul's answer to the question "what must I do to be saved?" that they should "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized"? No. His answer was to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ". Faith is required for salvation. Of course, we're not talking about head knowledge here, but faith and trust in Christ as Lord and Savior. Symbolic rituals are not required for salvation. It is the baptism of the Spirit that places us into the body (1 Cor 12:13) and not water baptism.

John, why do you respond to my posts if you are going to ignore what I say???

What is belief in Jesus Christ???

John146
Oct 30th 2008, 06:50 PM
John146, was the baptism in Acts 2:38 "baptism of the Spirit" or water baptism?Water baptism. But if you want to think that you can use that verse to prove that water baptism is necessary for salvation and receiving the Spirit then you need to explain how it was that Cornelius and his household received the Spirit BEFORE being baptized in water.

Why do you suppose that water baptism isn't mentioned in this passage that is found only one chapter later:

Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

The reason is that it is repentance that leads to the forgiveness of sins and salvation, not water baptism.

2 Cor 7:10
For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.

Why didn't Paul say godly sorrow produces repentance leading to water baptism which produces salvation?

People were encouraged to use the event of water baptism as the way to confess their sins and repent, but that doesn't mean someone could not repent any other way and had to wait until they could get to water to repent.


I believe baptism in water of a believer is both a physical and spiritual even happening at once.Where does scripture teach that? John the Baptist clearly differentiated between water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit so they can't be seen as the same thing. He said he baptized with water BUT Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit. Two separate baptisms. But the one that places us into the church is the baptism of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13).

John146
Oct 30th 2008, 06:53 PM
John, why do you respond to my posts if you are going to ignore what I say???I don't ignore what you say. Ignoring and disagreeing aren't the same thing.


What is belief in Jesus Christ???Denying oneself and putting one's complete faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 07:03 PM
Water baptism. But if you want to think that you can use that verse to prove that water baptism is necessary for salvation and receiving the Spirit then you need to explain how it was that Cornelius and his household received the Spirit BEFORE being baptized in water.

Why do you suppose that water baptism isn't mentioned in this passage that is found only one chapter later:

Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

The reason is that it is repentance that leads to the forgiveness of sins and salvation, not water baptism.

2 Cor 7:10
For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.

Why didn't Paul say godly sorrow produces repentance leading to water baptism which produces salvation?

People were encouraged to use the event of water baptism as the way to confess their sins and repent, but that doesn't mean someone could not repent any other way and had to wait until they could get to water to repent.

Where does scripture teach that? John the Baptist clearly differentiated between water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit so they can't be seen as the same thing. He said he baptized with water BUT Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit. Two separate baptisms. But the one that places us into the church is the baptism of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13).

You forgot a verse John,

Acts 3:19-20 ( KJV ) 19Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

They already knew about baptism.

John, what is the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 07:06 PM
I don't ignore what you say. Ignoring and disagreeing aren't the same thing.

Denying oneself and putting one's complete faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

OK, denying one's self is self evident.

Can you please define, "putting one's complete faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?"

John146
Oct 30th 2008, 07:13 PM
You forgot a verse John,

Acts 3:19-20 ( KJV ) 19Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

They already knew about baptism.They already knew about baptism before Acts 2:38, too.


John, what is the baptism of the Holy Spirit?You don't know what it is? It is the act of the Holy Spirit of indwelling us, giving us a clean slate by spiritually washing our sins away and bringing us into the church while making us new creations in Christ. By one Spirit we have been baptized into one body (1 Cor 12:13).

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 07:14 PM
Water baptism.

The reason I ask is because Acts 2:41,47 say that those who believed what Peter preached and were baptized were added to the church by Jesus Christ Himself. This would seem to be the same baptism Paul speaks of in 1 Cor. 12:13.


But if you want to think that you can use that verse to prove that water baptism is necessary for salvation and receiving the Spirit then you need to explain how it was that Cornelius and his household received the Spirit BEFORE being baptized in water.

So do you think Acts 2:38 proves the necessity of baptism, if it weren't for other passages? :hmm:

Here is a link to my thoughts on Cornelius supposedly being saved before baptism:

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=331575&postcount=8

Here is a quote from that link:


Was this miraculous action of the Holy Spirit a sign of salvation?

Tell me, were the disciples saved at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured upon them, or before when Christ was still alive?

If you say they were already “saved” when Christ was alive, then you cannot assume that the outpouring of the Spirit upon them was a “point of salvation.” Likewise, the outpouring upon the gentiles could not be proof of a “point of salvation,” since what happened to them was the same thing that happened to the apostles (Acts 11:17).

This outpouring was a miraculous sign that salvation was available to the gentiles, not that salvation was already in hand for Cornelius and his family. If it was, why would Peter go through the unnecessary action of baptizing them into Christ? This thought puts additional weight behind the idea that baptism as a word and action was understood by Peter to be by water, as he commanded it in Acts 10:47. This passage clearly shows this miraculous reception of the Holy Spirit by the gentiles to be separate and apart from the understood meaning of baptism!

Also, you cite Romans 8:9-11, and as I posted above, if the Spirit within us is the proof, then the baptism of Romans 6:3,4 cannot be Spirit baptism, because that baptism shows an immersion into something, then a raising up from something. We cannot be immersed in the Spirit and then removed from the Spirit. Such a view makes the passages of Romans 6:3,4 and Gal. 3:27 nonsensical.


Why do you suppose that water baptism isn't mentioned in this passage that is found only one chapter later:

Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

The reason is that it is repentance that leads to the forgiveness of sins and salvation, not water baptism.

I would suspect because Luke wrote Acts expecting us to remember what had gone before. The teaching at Pentecost was the mode of salvation under the New Covenant. The command to "repent and be baptized" was the "shot heard round the world." Luke did not think he had to keep repeating it.

But notice, John146, that every single conversion recorded in the book of Acts included baptism. Every single one.



2 Cor 7:10
For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.

Why didn't Paul say godly sorrow produces repentance leading to water baptism which produces salvation?

In context, Paul is talking to people who are already Christians! They have already been baptized. The discussion is about repenting of sinful actions, not about becoming a child of God.


Where does scripture teach that? John the Baptist clearly differentiated between water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit so they can't be seen as the same thing. He said he baptized with water BUT Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit. Two separate baptisms. But the one that places us into the church is the baptism of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13).

Jesus taught that in John 3:3,5. Paul taught that in Titus 3:5, Romans 6:1-8. Acts 2:38 and 22:16, by linking baptism with remission of sins, shows an event that is both spiritual and physical, happening at the same time.

In 1 Cor. 12:13, the scripture says:

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

Notice by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. See how that lines up with the action in Acts 2:38,41,47, in which Jesus adds one to the body after baptism? See how it also lines up with Paul's teaching that one puts on Christ and is baptized into Christ?

RogerW
Oct 30th 2008, 07:15 PM
Good points Roger,

Let me first clarify the early church. I don't follow the early church, I use the writings of the early church to expound on Scripture. The
farther you get from the apostles more chance of error entering into your doctrine. Therefore, I give more weight to what is said by those who were directly in contact with the apostles, men like Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome. These men had direct interaction with the apostles, they traveled and spoke with the apostles, they saw how the apostles lived out their teachings. The next generation gets a little less weight given to what they say. And this continues as they get farther from the apostles. The other area I use concerning hte Ante-Nicene writers is if they are in agreement across the entire region.The Scriptures are my ultimate authority, they are where doctrine comes from. However, when we read the Scriptures, we are reading works written 2000 years ago, they were written in Greek, in a different culture. How are we to understand what the Scriptures are talking about if we have no idea of what was happening at the time they were written. Remember many of the letters were written to address specific problems that the churches were dealing with. How can we understand the answer to those problems, if we don't know what the question was? Suppose you picked up a letter in my house that said "I am going to give you $100 dollars, Does that mean everyone who reads that letter is going to get $100? Does it mean Tom will get $100? Or George? You have to know who I intended to send the letter to in order to know who was going to get the money. We have the same thing with Scripture, we have to who and what and where. These early Church writers tell us who and what and where. For instance,


1 Timothy 5:9 ( KJV ) 9Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,

I have seen this verse used to say that the church should not take widows in the congregation who are under 60 years old. Is that what this means? It appears so, doesn't that go against what the Bible says about honoring widows? So which one do we do? Do we honor them, or do we exclude them form the congregation? Well, neither, because when you look back at the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, you will find that the early church had a ministry which was started by the apostle Paul, in which there was a group of Godly widows who would minister to the needs of the church in prayer. This is what Paul is speaking of when He says not to let a widow under 60 into the number. So, without the background information supplied by the Ante-Nicene writers it can be hard to understand some of the Scriptures. Also the books of Mathew and Mark who wrote them and how do we know? We accept them as inspired but they did not sign their names to them. We know that the books were written by Matthew and Mark because the Ante-Nicene writers tell that they wrote them.

Actually you mention infant baptism, that is not the only place I disagree with the early church regarding baptism. As they got farther from the apostles error did creep in. I do not agree with them on infant baptism. I believe this started around the time of Cyprian which would be around the year 200 a.d. I also disagree with them as they began to let time come between the the profession and the baptism. I believe one should be baptized immediately as the Scriptures show. Again, the Ante-Nicene writers are only extra support of what the Scriptures say. If the Ante-Nicene writers say something opposed to Scripture they are wrong. And they were worng on some things

Hi Butch,

While I will agree that historical writings help us to understand the times, and give us information regarding specific problems being addressed in Scripture, I think we must remember (and it seems you do) that these historical helps cannot be used to interpret biblical doctrine. What I'm trying to say is that we don't bring these historical writings to the Word, and then make the Scripture fit the historical writings. This is reading into Scripture, as opposed to allowing the Bible to be its own interpreter. It appears to me that this is what you have done regarding the doctrine of baptism.

Another problem I find with relying too much on historical writings to confirm biblical doctrine is how limited the early church fathers were. They did not have 2000+ years of church history to consider, nor did they have the printing press, dictionaries, lexicons, concordances, as well as the complete and inspired Word of God, and a vast majority of faithful, God fearing men, who, at length have fought and given their lives for doctrinal purity, fighting against herectical teachings. We have such great advantages today, they could not have imagined. We have instant communication, and don't have to rely on letters being hand carried. It would be foolish for us to act as though everything written after the nicene or anti-nicene fathers is not of the utmost value. While I agree there is much garbage to sometimes wade through, there is also a vast amount of valuble help and wisdom to take advantage of.



Regarding babies, I' ll just say briefly here because I don't want to derail the thread. I believe all babies are saved because Paul said where there is no law sin is not imputed. It is more complicated than that, but I don't want to derail this thread. I you want to start another we can discuss this.

Since the op asks, "is baptism an outward sign of an inward change", infant baptism should most certainly be taken into consideration. Since I began the thread, I believe I have the luxury of making this determination.

You seem to be saying that babies are without sin, therefore all babies are saved? You are confusing helplessness with innocense, for Scripture clearly tells us that none are righteous, not even helpless babies. So what does Paul mean when he says, "sin is not imputed when there is no law"?

By Adam's transgression sin entered the world. By representation and imputation, sin and its results (spiritual death, physical death, darkness, disease and enmity against God) entered into ALL men. When Adam sinned and fell, we all sinned and fell through Adam, our representative head. Not only was sin imputed to all men, but a nature of sin was imparted to us.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Therefore, as one man's (Adam's) sin led to judgment and condemnation for all whom he represents (human race), so one man's (Christ's) obedience and sacrifice brought justification, redemption and life to all whom He represented (elect of God). We were not present with Adam when he sinned, but we were in his loins, and we were in him as the covenant head of the human race, therefore condemned with him. In the same way, when our Lord perfectly obeyed God's holy requirements and satisfied God's justice on the cross, we were in Him as His seed and covenant people, and therefore accepted as justified.

So even babies can only be saved by grace through faith. Without the grace of God extended to them, then even babies are without hope. But even babies can be saved. Consider John the baptist, who was saved while still in his mother's womb. Because salvation is by grace through faith, and faith is the free gift of God's grace, even a tiny helpless babe can be saved through imputation. What a great comfort to believing parents when they claim the promise of God that salvation is unto us and to our children, and also why we baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as soon as they be born, bringing them into the covenant body to become partakers of the many blessings God bestows upon His church in the world.

Many Blessings,
RW

John146
Oct 30th 2008, 07:15 PM
OK, denying one's self is self evident.

Can you please define, "putting one's complete faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?"I thought it was pretty self explanatory. It means putting one's faith and trust in Christ to be their Lord and Master (above anyone or anything else) and for the saving of their souls and forgiveness of their sins.

Veretax
Oct 30th 2008, 07:16 PM
Wow so many things to respond to at one time… Hrms where to start.
Teke, if you believe that water baptism is necessary to be in the body, then you are teaching salvation by works, for baptism is essentially a work as it is a Command of God.

Now you’ve failed to explain what living water is. Christ told the Woman at the well, if she knew who he was she would ask for the living water that she may never thirst. What is the living water? It is the Holy Spirit. The point here is obvious, if she had recognized Christ, she could have and probably would have asked, but she didn’t recognize who he was, therefore she did not ask. Later in the passage it sounds like she did ask, and then she goes to the town and brings all of her ‘friends’ to see Christ, and they marveled so much that the asked Christ to stay with them, and he did for 2 days the passage says.
Now I asked about the OT washing for a reason. The people of Jesus time understood a bit about what ceremonial cleansing meant, they had the picture from the law, and from the priests. So naturally, when they saw John preaching and calling them all to come, repent, and be baptized. They understood that this was a cleansing. However, as we know, simply being cleansed did not save, in fact, many who did (Pharisees for example), rejected Christ outwardly and inwardly before he was crucified.

So how is it that you believe that baptism is preparation for belief in Christ, when clearly, it does not guarantee that ye be prepared? Now as it happens if we move earlier just a few verses from the passage of the woman at the well, we find this little nugget:

John 4:1-3
1 Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John 2 (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples), 3 He left Judea and departed again to Galilee.
This is taking place after the passage where Jesus has his conversation with Nicodemus about needing to be born of water and spirit. Many of the Pharisees, perhaps Nicodemus was among them, had probably been baptized by John, they had in their minds confessed their sins, and they believed themselves forgiven and justified because of it. Christ Tell’s Nicodemus that he must be born again.

John 3: 3-6
3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Clearly, as I’ve said before this is an allusion to the prophecy in Ezekiel 36 which I’m not going to repost at this time. We must be born again. Nicodemus didn’t get it, he thought he had to reenter the womb for that to happen, then Jesus gives the statement that has come up multiple times here. ?" “5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
They had already seen John the Baptist’s ministry, and if he had to know about the prophecy of the one crying out in the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord. This is why they were coming and being baptized and confessing their sins. Yet, confession alone does not save, to enter the kingdom they had to have a new Spirit within them (that being God’s Spirit). We can argue day and night over what is meant by water.
We know from elsewhere in scripture that salvation comes by the hearing of the Word, we know that Christ is the Word, and that he is the one that has the living water, that which does not quench thirst but produces a fountain overflowing inside and that is the Holy Spirit’s work. We know this because Jesus knows that Nicodemus marvels at this as it continues:

7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
The word here for Wind, in greek is talking about the spirit, it’s the word pneuma, The same word where we get the word for gaseous systems. Pneumatic… He’s talking about the work of the Holy Spirit. Yet Nicodemus still doesn’t get it. That God’s Spirit moves onto them who are born of the spirit and though they may notice it, they can’t tell where it comes from or where it went.
9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, "How can these things be?" 10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
In my text We is capitalized, and I surmise this is because Christ isn’t referring to himself and the disciples but to the plurality of the triune godhead. The Holy Spirit was present even then, as was the Father in Christ, but Nicodemus didn’t recognize it. It’s just as that passage in Ezekiel. Their hearts were as stone, they couldn’t recognize their own Lord. Why? Because the true washing, that of the heart had not come yet, that is

We know in Matthew that Jesus wailed at the Pharisee and their Hypocrisy:
Matt 23:25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also. 27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
This is precisely what Jesus is saying, they washed themselves, but they were only getting the dirt on the outside. So I ask you when does this washing of the inside happen? Why does Jesus mention the water, if he means baptism? Clearly, the problem was not one of external cleansing, but of that inside. I believe this matter was settled when Christ shed his blood as the ultimate sacrifice on the Cross. As it is written in Hebrews:

Hebrews 19:7-14
7 But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people's sins committed in ignorance;
8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience-- 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. 11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Later in the passage it says that Christ Died once for all, when he died, he paid the price and redeemed us from sin. I believe that settles our Sin debt if we accept it in Faith. But Jesus wasn’t done talking with Nicodemus he continued:
John 3:13-21
13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."
Clearly, eternal life, entering the kingdom, joining the body of Christ, all happen at the same time, at the moment of Belief. He who believes in Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, why? Because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God, it is interesting after this passage the Jesus is found baptizing, and STILL some people were following John the Baptist:
John 3:22-
22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized. 23 Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized. 24 For John had not yet been thrown into prison. 25 Then there arose a dispute between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purification. 26 And they came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified--behold, He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!" 27 John answered and said, "A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven. 28 You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, 'I am not the Christ,' but, 'I have been sent before Him.' 29 He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice. Therefore this joy of mine is fulfilled. 30 He must increase, but I must decrease. 31 He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. 32 And what He has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. 33 He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true. 34 For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure. 35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. 36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

The real nugget I get out of that, is this: 27 John answered and said, "A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven.” Which is true, how could we receive Christ before he was given to us, how could we receive his word before it was given to us. Therefore, there is a duty implied here, to those who are given this truth, they should receive him. What did John say?
32 And what He has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. 33 He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true. 34 For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure.
John tells them, that his testimony is true, he’s essentially validating it, yet even John knows that even as these many flock to Jesus, they are not getting it., They are not understanding. Those that have received though, have sealed it as true that God is true. In 34, I think is the key. The implication is Jesus is speaking the words in total, not in some partial part, but that his words have a completeness. At least that’s what I’m understanding from this passage.
36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
John concludes by saying those who believe have everlasting life, and those who do not, shall not see life, but wrath of God. Again, it is Belief which brings to eternal life, not baptism, and this from what in his day must have been seen as the preeminent baptizer (John the Baptist himself).
What’s the difference then? The difference is those who receive the word, do not just receive mere words, but the Spirit of God at the moment they receive the Gospel and cast their belief upon Christ.




Matt:
What I am saying is that water baptism should be and for me was an act of obedience to fulfill one of the first commandments Christ gave the church. Not that it saved, but that it was a sign to those in that local assembly that I was identifying myself with Christ. Now ask yourself, what is Paul talking about here, when he talks about being Baptized into Christ?
Romans 6:3-10
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

We are united in Christ in the likeness of his debt, that being that our old man was crucified with him, that our body of sin would be done away with, thus we are no longer slaves to sin, and yet just as Christ rose, we rise and are hence reborn freed from sin. Now, I know that Baptist Denominations take this verse and say this is why the baptize by immersion, because it is a picture of what happens at salvation. Being buried and identified with Christ’s death, where our sins have been left, and being raised with Christ to new life. This is how I understand it as being a Symbol, and why I believe baptism by immersion is the preferred form. However, I don’t argue over the amount of water. Why? Because 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.
What is this? Paul says they obeyed with the Heart? And were set free from sin, now they are slaves of righteousness. They not only heard the Gospel, they Obeyed.and received it.

Veretax
Oct 30th 2008, 07:17 PM
continued...
Romans 8:14-19: The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit (we have a spirit too), that we are the child of God.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father." 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
17 and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
Romans 9:30-33
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
Note what is being said here? Why did this come to the Gentiles? Because Israel did not seek it by faith, but by the works of the law. They looked for a way to prove and work for their salvation by keeping the law, but the problem was the law does not justify.
So matt your right that the Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Clearly from what I’ve just shown, receiving the gospel, and believing is key to salvation. Simply being in attendance at its recitation is not. (I’ll check your site out another time)

Roger, I see you’ve brought the ‘I’ in TULIP, into the discussion. I don’t have time to really delve into that right now, but if I do later I shall. I think you are adding words to what I am saying. God’s words have the power to save. Period, the problem is not in the messenger, but the recipient. Your own words say that they believe, well how did they believe? Is ‘believing’ not a Response? I’m going to disagree on that, Belief is a response. If it is not a response, if it is something that God compels us to do, then why does he not compel all to believe? It’s the same reason Adam was allowed to fall in the first place, man had to be different from the Angels, he had a measure of free will, and only through that free will could righteousness be shown. Otherwise sin would have not been known, and we’d have been ignorant.
Now I do understand what you are saying. God is inherently involved in the salvation process. When we as a believers give testimony to someone, it is not just us who bears witness, but the Spirit of God within us who speaks to their heart as we do through the Word that God has given us. The words of God themselves are the power of God. He spoke this world into being. Therefore, it is my belief, that the Word of God does not return void, that those whose heart are impacted by the word are indeed changed, and fruit can spring up. Now we know from the parable of the sower, that sometimes, it will be choked by thorns. But those thorns are the result of the worldly things we allow to entangle our lives. Not sure if that clears it up per say. I don’t believe in Irresistible Grace as it is stated in the five points of Calvin. I do believe though that the Words of God have impact when they reach the mark, the problem is (and this is a phenomena I learned of in Communications classes in college simply put as internal dissonance, that being something in the person being spoken too which interferes with the delivery of the message. I believe this dissonance is the fault of us, not the ones bringing the message) (I really don't like pasting all these verses in and having to parse my responses in dual posts, but eh can't be helped.)

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 07:19 PM
John---They already knew about baptism before Acts 2:38, too.

Yes, that's why it doesn't have to be spoken in every verse, because they already knew it.

You don't know what it is? It is the act of the Holy Spirit of indwelling us, giving us a clean slate by spiritually washing our sins away and bringing us into the church while making us new creations in Christ. By one Spirit we have been baptized into one body (1 Cor 12:13.

John, you didn't answer my question. What you gave was the result of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. My question is, what "is" the baptsim of the Holy Spirit? Not what is the reult of the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

RogerW
Oct 30th 2008, 07:24 PM
When someone makes the argument that "if its all God's grace, then there can be no human 'co-operation', no matter how miniscule", I think that the very concept of "grace" is being abused. A hard rigid mathematical, binary, kind of mind-set is brought to what, I suggest, is actually a concept which is actually much more fluid and ambiguous.

What I am trying to say is this: the way that the term "grace" is sometimes used, at least in english western cultures, indeed allows for some degree of co-operation. We would, I suggest, affirm that the giving of any gift, even if freely and wilfully accepted is, in fact, still seen to fall under the concept of "grace".

The mistake you make is making salvation a free gift offered. Where do you find salvation is offered in Scripture? Salvation is not merely offered to be accepted or rejected, we read throughout Scripture "I GIVE them eternal life." "God so loved the world He GAVE"....where do you find it written that salvation is a free gift offered, and to be accepted or rejected? The very essence of grace is the Divine influence upon one's heart. Can man willingly change his own heart? NO! It takes the grace of God to change what is spiritually dead in trespasses and sins, and in bondage to Satan and death.

Blessings,
RW

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 07:25 PM
Wow so many things to respond to at one time… Hrms where to start.
Teke, if you believe that water baptism is necessary to be in the body, then you are teaching salvation by works, for baptism is essentially a work as it is a Command of God.

Belief, repentance and public confession of Christ are also commands of God. Are they necessary for salvation?



Matt:
What I am saying is that water baptism should be and for me was an act of obedience to fulfill one of the first commandments Christ gave the church. Not that it saved, but that it was a sign to those in that local assembly that I was identifying myself with Christ.

All I'm asking is for you to examine the scriptures with me on this point. Where do the scriptures say baptism is a sign to a local assembly that you were identifying yourself with Christ?

Think about the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. Was he being baptized to identify himself with a local congregation?

John146
Oct 30th 2008, 07:29 PM
Hi Butch,

While I will agree that historical writings help us to understand the times, and give us information regarding specific problems being addressed in Scripture, I think we must remember (and it seems you do) that these historical helps cannot be used to interpret biblical doctrine. What I'm trying to say is that we don't bring these historical writings to the Word, and then make the Scripture fit the historical writings. This is reading into Scripture, as opposed to allowing the Bible to be its own interpreter. It appears to me that this is what you have done regarding the doctrine of baptism.

Another problem I find with relying too much on historical writings to confirm biblical doctrine is how limited the early church fathers were. They did not have 2000+ years of church history to consider, nor did they have the printing press, dictionaries, lexicons, concordances, as well as the complete and inspired Word of God, and a vast majority of faithful, God fearing men, who, at length have fought and given their lives for doctrinal purity, fighting against herectical teachings. We have such great advantages today, they could not have imagined. We have instant communication, and don't have to rely on letters being hand carried. It would be foolish for us to act as though everything written after the nicene or anti-nicene fathers is not of the utmost value. While I agree there is much garbage to sometimes wade through, there is also a vast amount of valuble help and wisdom to take advantage of.



Since the op asks, "is baptism an outward sign of an inward change", infant baptism should most certainly be taken into consideration. Since I began the thread, I believe I have the luxury of making this determination.

You seem to be saying that babies are without sin, therefore all babies are saved? You are confusing helplessness with innocense, for Scripture clearly tells us that none are righteous, not even helpless babies. So what does Paul mean when he says, "sin is not imputed when there is no law"?

By Adam's transgression sin entered the world. By representation and imputation, sin and its results (spiritual death, physical death, darkness, disease and enmity against God) entered into ALL men. When Adam sinned and fell, we all sinned and fell through Adam, our representative head. Not only was sin imputed to all men, but a nature of sin was imparted to us.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Therefore, as one man's (Adam's) sin led to judgment and condemnation for all whom he represents (human race), so one man's (Christ's) obedience and sacrifice brought justification, redemption and life to all whom He represented (elect of God). We were not present with Adam when he sinned, but we were in his loins, and we were in him as the covenant head of the human race, therefore condemned with him. In the same way, when our Lord perfectly obeyed God's holy requirements and satisfied God's justice on the cross, we were in Him as His seed and covenant people, and therefore accepted as justified.

So even babies can only be saved by grace through faith. Without the grace of God extended to them, then even babies are without hope. But even babies can be saved. Consider John the baptist, who was saved while still in his mother's womb. Because salvation is by grace through faith, and faith is the free gift of God's grace, even a tiny helpless babe can be saved through imputation. What a great comfort to believing parents when they claim the promise of God that salvation is unto us and to our children, and also why we baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as soon as they be born, bringing them into the covenant body to become partakers of the many blessings God bestows upon His church in the world.

Many Blessings,
RWAre you suggesting that by baptizing our babies it brings them into the church and ensures their salvation?

RogerW
Oct 30th 2008, 07:29 PM
John146, was the baptism in Acts 2:38 "baptism of the Spirit" or water baptism?

I believe baptism in water of a believer is both a physical and spiritual even happening at once.

Greetings Matt,

Do you believe that one believes because he/she has been born again by the Spirit?

Blessings,
RW

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 07:31 PM
I thought it was pretty self explanatory. It means putting one's faith and trust in Christ to be their Lord and Master (above anyone or anything else) and for the saving of their souls and forgiveness of their sins.

John, what do you mean by "It means putting one's faith and trust in Christ"?

Are you saying just have an intellectual udestanding or something more?

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 07:40 PM
Greetings Matt,

Do you believe that one believes because he/she has been born again by the Spirit?

Blessings,
RW

No, the Bible teaches that we are born again by the Word of God:

1Pe 1:22 Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart,
1Pe 1:23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,
1Pe 1:24 because "ALL FLESH IS AS GRASS, AND ALL THE GLORY OF MAN AS THE FLOWER OF THE GRASS. THE GRASS WITHERS, AND ITS FLOWER FALLS AWAY,
1Pe 1:25 BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER." Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.

Paul says in Romans 10:14-17 that in order to hear the word, a preacher must be sent, and that faith comes from hearing the Word of God.

Veretax
Oct 30th 2008, 07:46 PM
Isaiah 49:8
8 Thus says the Lord: "In an acceptable time I have heard You, And in the day of salvation I have helped You; I will preserve You and give You As a covenant to the people, To restore the earth, To cause them to inherit the desolate heritages;

Paul reiterates this in 2 Cor 6:2

2 Corinthians 6:1-10 1 We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain. 2 For He says: "In an acceptable time I have heard you, And in the day of salvation I have helped you."* Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. 3 We give no offense in anything, that our ministry may not be blamed. 4 But in all things we commend ourselves as ministers of God: in much patience, in tribulations, in needs, in distresses, 5 in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in sleeplessness, in fastings; 6 by purity, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Spirit, by sincere love, 7 by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, 8 by honor and dishonor, by evil report and good report; as deceivers, and yet true; 9 as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold we live; as chastened, and yet not killed; 10 as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things. So if belief is of God as you attest to Roger, how can one believe in Vain? That makes no sense to me, if God's grace is as you say Irresistible? Why would paul say that?

John146
Oct 30th 2008, 07:50 PM
[/color][/font]

The mistake you make is making salvation a free gift offered. Where do you find salvation is offered in Scripture?Rev 22:17
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

If it is not a free gift then there is nothing we have to do to receive it. It would just happen without us doing anything. Yet scripture clearly says that there is something we must do to receive it. We must repent and believe in Christ to be saved. That doesn't just happen. There is responsibility on our part to accept the offer by turning from our sins and putting our faith and trust in Christ as our Lord and Savior.

Heb 10:10
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

1 Timothy 2
3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

1 John 2
1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Christ died as an offering for all people so that all people could be saved. But, again, it doesn't automatically save people because God requires all people everywhere to repent and believe in Christ in order to be saved. And don't try to say that Christ did not give himself a ransom for all people. He came to die for sinners. Even false teachers.

2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Christ died for the sins of all people but many people deny Him. That is by their choice. Christ did what He had to do for their salvation but they deny Him. That is why everyone has to give account of themselves on judgment day. There is no one to blame for someone not believing in Christ than themselves. They can't say that they did not have the ability to believe because all people do. They are condemned for willingly choosing to reject Christ and the gospel.

2 Thess 2
9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

They perish and are damned because they had no ability to accept the truth, which is the gospel? No, they are damned for willingly rejecting the truth, which would have saved them had they accepted it.

John146
Oct 30th 2008, 07:52 PM
John, what do you mean by "It means putting one's faith and trust in Christ"?

Are you saying just have an intellectual udestanding or something more?Surrendering one's will to Christ. Believing and trusting in Him with all one's heart, soul and mind. Why are you asking me these questions?

John146
Oct 30th 2008, 07:54 PM
John---They already knew about baptism before Acts 2:38, too.

Yes, that's why it doesn't have to be spoken in every verse, because they already knew it.

You don't know what it is? It is the act of the Holy Spirit of indwelling us, giving us a clean slate by spiritually washing our sins away and bringing us into the church while making us new creations in Christ. By one Spirit we have been baptized into one body (1 Cor 12:13.

John, you didn't answer my question. What you gave was the result of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. My question is, what "is" the baptsim of the Holy Spirit? Not what is the reult of the baptism of the Holy Spirit?I spoke of both what it is and what results from it. Why don't you tell me what you think is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

RogerW
Oct 30th 2008, 08:01 PM
Are you suggesting that by baptizing our babies it brings them into the church and ensures their salvation?

Of course not.

Blessings,
RW

John146
Oct 30th 2008, 08:05 PM
Of course not.

Blessings,
RWYou say "of course not" but the way you worded it made it seem that way. At least I asked instead of assuming what you meant. :D

RogerW
Oct 30th 2008, 08:06 PM
No, the Bible teaches that we are born again by the Word of God:

1Pe 1:22 Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart,
1Pe 1:23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,
1Pe 1:24 because "ALL FLESH IS AS GRASS, AND ALL THE GLORY OF MAN AS THE FLOWER OF THE GRASS. THE GRASS WITHERS, AND ITS FLOWER FALLS AWAY,
1Pe 1:25 BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER." Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.

Paul says in Romans 10:14-17 that in order to hear the word, a preacher must be sent, and that faith comes from hearing the Word of God.

Okay Matt,

So we hear the Word of God and we believe because we have been born again by the Spirit?

Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Oct 30th 2008, 08:10 PM
You say "of course not" but the way you worded it made it seem that way. At least I asked instead of assuming what you meant. :D

Thank you for asking Eric. I should not have been so abrupt. Please forgive me.

I believe in baptizing our infants that we are claiming God's promise of salvation for our children because we are bringing them into the covenant body outwardly, thereby making all the blessings God has bestowed upon His covenant body available to them. It is our prayer, as faithful covenant parents that through training and instruction in the Lord, they will in time profess saving faith, and become part of God's eternal Covenant body or Bride of Christ.

Many Blessings,
RW

John146
Oct 30th 2008, 08:21 PM
Thank you for asking Eric. I should not have been so abrupt. Please forgive me.

I believe in baptizing our infants that we are claiming God's promise of salvation for our children because we are bringing them into the covenant body outwardly, thereby making all the blessings God has bestowed upon His covenant body available to them. It is our prayer, as faithful covenant parents that through training and instruction in the Lord, they will in time profess saving faith, and become part of God's eternal Covenant body or Bride of Christ.

Many Blessings,
RWI'm okay with doing baby dedications, but you need to realize something about water baptism.

Acts 8
36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Water baptism is not intended for babies. It is only intended for those who believe in Christ with all of their heart. Do babies believe in Christ with all of their heart? You might point to a unique exception like John the Baptist and say that they can. But we know that other than a special case like John the Baptist babies are not able yet to put their faith in Christ. Therefore, I don't believe that babies should be baptized.

Do you believe that infants who are baptized should get baptized again later in their lives after they have put their faith in Christ? If so, where does scripture teach that anyone should be baptized more than once?

RogerW
Oct 30th 2008, 08:33 PM
I'm okay with doing baby dedications, but you need to realize something about water baptism.

Acts 8
36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Water baptism is not intended for babies. It is only intended for those who believe in Christ with all of their heart. Do babies believe in Christ with all of their heart? You might point to a unique exception like John the Baptist and say that they can. But we know that other than a special case like John the Baptist babies are not able yet to put their faith in Christ. Therefore, I don't believe that babies should be baptized.

Do you believe that infants who are baptized should get baptized again later in their lives after they have put their faith in Christ? If so, where does scripture teach that anyone should be baptized more than once?

Eric, I don't deny the validity of believers baptism, this is biblical. You say John the Baptist is a special case because babies cannot put their faith in Christ...did John put his faith in Christ? Of course he didn't, but he was still saved. What John the Baptist shows us is that even babies and mentally impaired people can be saved by grace through faith that is not our own, but the gift of God's grace upon them. In the womb John knew nothing at all, but he is a beautiful example of how God imparts saving grace to whosoever He wills without distinction.

No, babies who are baptized do not need to be re-baptized, they need simply make a profession of faith as evidence they too have experienced saving grace and that they love the Lord.

Many Blessings,
RW

Teke
Oct 30th 2008, 08:39 PM
Teke, if you believe that water baptism is necessary to be in the body, then you are teaching salvation by works, for baptism is essentially a work as it is a Command of God.

Yes, it is one of those good works God created us for. :)
He did not create us only to do good works, He created us “for” good works. It puts everyone, rich poor, young old etc., on equal ground.


Now you’ve failed to explain what living water is.

On the contrary, I did when I directed the source of the water, Christ the Life Giving Font.


So how is it that you believe that baptism is preparation for belief in Christ, when clearly, it does not guarantee that ye be prepared?

I did not say it was preparation for belief in Christ. I said it was preparation for the fullness of grace. A clean dwelling place for the Spirit/God.

As to being prepared, that is what baptism is/does.

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 08:43 PM
Okay Matt,

So we hear the Word of God and we believe because we have been born again by the Spirit?

Blessings,
RW

According to the scriptures, it's the other way around. We are born again because we develop faith. We develop faith because we hear and obey the Word of God. As James says:

Jas 1:21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

If a man is born again by the Spirit, he has no need of learning about salvation. He is already saved. :)

Paul says the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, Romans 1:16. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, Romans 10:17. Therefore, a man hears the word first, then develops faith.

When he obeys the gospel by believing in Jesus as the Son of the Living God (Matt. 16:16-18), confessing Him publicly (Matt. 10:32-33; Rom. 10:9-10), repents (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 17:30), and is baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16) he is added to the church by Jesus Himself (Acts 2:41,47).

That is how one is born again, according to the scriptures.

RogerW
Oct 30th 2008, 08:51 PM
Isaiah 49:8
8 Thus says the Lord: "In an acceptable time I have heard You, And in the day of salvation I have helped You; I will preserve You and give You As a covenant to the people, To restore the earth, To cause them to inherit the desolate heritages;

Paul reiterates this in 2 Cor 6:2

2 Corinthians 6:1-10 1 We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain. 2 For He says: "In an acceptable time I have heard you, And in the day of salvation I have helped you."* Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. 3 We give no offense in anything, that our ministry may not be blamed. 4 But in all things we commend ourselves as ministers of God: in much patience, in tribulations, in needs, in distresses, 5 in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in sleeplessness, in fastings; 6 by purity, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Spirit, by sincere love, 7 by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, 8 by honor and dishonor, by evil report and good report; as deceivers, and yet true; 9 as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold we live; as chastened, and yet not killed; 10 as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things. So if belief is of God as you attest to Roger, how can one believe in Vain? That makes no sense to me, if God's grace is as you say Irresistible? Why would paul say that?

Greetings Veretax,

To hear the gospel, or to be exposed to it, or only give lip service to it, or to profess to believe it and then turn away is to receive it 'in vain.' Vain grace is no grace at all. Paul shows how much true grace is willing to endure in order to convey the gospel to others, and how much they had in fact endured, and how much they had-benefited others. This is to remind us of what our salvation has cost, and to appeal to us to lead holy and pure lives. If we do not live as we should, it is not because Paul and his fellow-labourers have not shown their love to us, and sought our welfare, but from a defect in ourselves...a vain grace. Vain is a primary Greek word that means "empty."

Many Blessings,
RW

John146
Oct 30th 2008, 08:58 PM
Eric, I don't deny the validity of believers baptism, this is biblical. You say John the Baptist is a special case because babies cannot put their faith in Christ...did John put his faith in Christ? Of course he didn't, but he was still saved. What John the Baptist shows us is that even babies and mentally impaired people can be saved by grace through faith that is not our own, but the gift of God's grace upon them. In the womb John knew nothing at all, but he is a beautiful example of how God imparts saving grace to whosoever He wills without distinction.

No, babies who are baptized do not need to be re-baptized, they need simply make a profession of faith as evidence they too have experienced saving grace and that they love the Lord.

Many Blessings,
RWThe bottom line regarding infant baptism is that the Bible does not teach that we should baptize infants so by doing that you are doing it by your own tradition and not because scripture says we should.

Teke
Oct 30th 2008, 09:01 PM
According to the scriptures, it's the other way around. We are born again because we develop faith. We develop faith because we hear and obey the Word of God. As James says:

Jas 1:21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

If a man is born again by the Spirit, he has no need of learning about salvation. He is already saved. :)

Paul says the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, Romans 1:16. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, Romans 10:17. Therefore, a man hears the word first, then develops faith.

When he obeys the gospel by believing in Jesus as the Son of the Living God (Matt. 16:16-18), confessing Him publicly (Matt. 10:32-33; Rom. 10:9-10), repents (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 17:30), and is baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16) he is added to the church by Jesus Himself (Acts 2:41,47).

That is how one is born again, according to the scriptures.

Hey Matt. :)
I like this developmental model of yours.
As you know, I see salvation as a process, not a one time event.

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 09:01 PM
The bottom line regarding infant baptism is that the Bible does not teach that we should baptize infants so by doing that you are doing it by your own tradition and not because scripture says we should.

Agreed, John146.

awestruckchild
Oct 30th 2008, 09:05 PM
Paintdiva, did you know that God says we can understand His word? Not only that, but he expects us to!

We can only understand it humanly. This is not the understanding He desires us to have. All that is of the world and of Adam - our human, our flesh - will not enjoy Him for eternity.

If we could do this by reading it ourselves or by being taught by another man or denomination, there would be no divisions as to what it means (other than more mild ones caused by different stages of acquaintance with the Holy Spirit - some newer, younger and some older in Christ.)

I am telling you the truth that I have seen, heard and experienced. The world, the human, the flesh, the Adam, cannot hear that what I say is true, but it is.

Paul told both the Ephesians and the Corinthians that they could read what he was writing, and understand the mystery of Christ:

Eph 3:3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already,
Eph 3:4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),

2Co 1:13 For we are not writing any other things to you than what you read or understand. Now I trust you will understand, even to the end
2Co 1:14 (as also you have understood us in part), that we are your boast as you also are ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Paul also said that faith comes by hearing the word of God, and that man could not hear unless someone spoke the Word:

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

A preacher is not called to teach mens opinions or what a seminary has taught him about what verses mean. He should proclaim the gospel and what the Holy Spirit has taught him is true.

Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF PEACE, WHO BRING GLAD TIDINGS OF GOOD THINGS!"
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?"
Rom 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

The gospel, which is contained in the New Testament, is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). If the Holy Spirit has to come to you and make you able to read and understand the gospel message in order for you to be saved, does that mean you are saved before you even hear the gospel?

There might be no real point in our discussing this. I will never lose my firmness or waver on this - the Holy Spirit is needed or we will not be able to hear it spiritually but only humanly - leaning on our own understanding. If you do not become aware of your need for Him to guide and teach you rather than men or denominations, He will not come to teach you.

Even Cornelius had to have a gospel preacher come to him and speak to him "words by which you and all your household will be saved" (Acts 11:14).

It is the gospel that is needed for us to hear. The Holy Spirit is the One Who must explain it to us if we are to understand truly. First, God draws, then we hear or read the gospel, then we have sorrow for not having believed He is and sorrow for what we are, this sorrow and repentance makes the way straight, true, for Him to enter, makes us capable of even receiving Him.

I am not talking about reading the bible with our human reasoning and understanding applied to it. I am talking about God is Spirit and we are not and our human can not understand spiritually, truly without the Holy Spirit.

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 09:06 PM
Hey Matt. :)
I like this developmental model of yours.
As you know, I see salvation as a process, not a one time event.
Yes, I remember from our past conversations. We differ somewhat in that I believe once a person develops faith, repents and confesses Christ publicly, only then is he or she a cadidate for baptism. At that point, he or she is a "saved" child of God.

We probably agree, though, that one must continue growth and walk in the faith in order to remain in God's grace.

However, I do not want to derail this thread from the OP's main point, which is...wait. What were we talking about again? :rofl:

awestruckchild
Oct 30th 2008, 09:06 PM
I am not sure how my reply has gotten enclosed in the quote box - I am sorry for this - I am not very computer savvy. Half of my post is actually in different places within the box supposed to be your quotes. If you tell me how to correct this I will.

drew
Oct 30th 2008, 09:08 PM
Can man willingly change his own heart? NO! It takes the grace of God to change what is spiritually dead in trespasses and sins, and in bondage to Satan and death.
We are going over old ground here. I will repost something I may have posted before:

I believe that that the "deadness" of mankind "in trespass and sin" is a "moral deadness" not a "cognitive" deadness. Our hopelessly fallen "moral" condition need not mean that we have lost the faculty to recognize ourselves as being in that state and then accept aid offered to us.

I would warn readers on all sides here to not assume that "dead" means "dead in every respect". We often use the term "dead" to refer to one aspect or dimension of a person's capacities (e.g. Fred is emotionally dead).

Consider this analogy: Let's say that my brain has been damaged in such a way that it is impossible for me to understand general relativity. Does this mean I cannot recognize and become aware of my incapacity in regard to general relativity? Obviously not. Blind people cannot see, but that does not mean they are not aware that sighted people have a capability that gives new information about the world.

In this example, I am "dead in my ignorance of general relativity", but I am not dead in other respects.

Suppose a surgeon comes along and says "We have this new operation that can fix your brain so that you can understand general relativity". Can I understand what he is claiming? Of course. Just like a blind person can understand that a certain operation might give him sight, even if he does not know what sight be like once he gets it (he has been blind from birth).

I trust the analogy is clear here. Unless it can be argued that our "deadness" extends to and includes our capacity to make judgements about ourselves and accept "a gift" that fixes our deadness, I do not see how these texts support a predestination worldview.

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 09:08 PM
It is the gospel that is needed for us to hear. The Holy Spirit is the One Who must explain it to us if we are to understand truly. First, God draws, then we hear or read the gospel, then we have sorrow for not having believed He is and sorrow for what we are, this sorrow and repentance makes the way straight, true, for Him to enter, makes us capable of even receiving Him.

I am not talking about reading the bible with our human reasoning and understanding applied to it. I am talking about God is Spirit and we are not and our human can not understand spiritually, truly without the Holy Spirit.

Paintdiva, before I answer the rest of your post, let me ask a clarifying question:

If we must have the Holy Spirit come and teach us by some method other than through the Bible, what need do we have of the Bible?

Also, how do you account for two "Holy Spirit-led teachers" who teach conflicting things?

Thanks!

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 09:09 PM
I am not sure how my reply has gotten enclosed in the quote box - I am sorry for this - I am not very computer savvy.
I understood every word. I'll separate it when I reply. ;)

Teke
Oct 30th 2008, 09:10 PM
The bottom line regarding infant baptism is that the Bible does not teach that we should baptize infants so by doing that you are doing it by your own tradition and not because scripture says we should.

On the contrary, Jesus said not to prevent them from coming to Him.
Also, there is no proof that they do not have a faith which cries out to God.

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 09:12 PM
On the contrary, Jesus said not to prevent them from coming to Him.
Also, there is no proof that they do not have a faith which cries out to God.
"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." -- Romans 10:17

That would seem to be proof that infants do not have faith that "cries out to God."

But since there is no such thing as "inherited sin guilt," babies are in no need of baptism. They have not reached an age to understand Christ's sacrifice, no have they sinned.

RogerW
Oct 30th 2008, 09:13 PM
According to the scriptures, it's the other way around. We are born again because we develop faith. We develop faith because we hear and obey the Word of God. As James says:

Jas 1:21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

Hi Matt,

I would say our faith matures when we hear and obey because we have received the free gift of salvation from above. In order for our faith to grow to maturity it must first exist. From where does it come? One who is spiritually dead in trespasses and sins, and in bondage to Satan, sin and death may possess natural faith, but he/she does not possess supernatural saving faith.

Jas 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Jas 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
Jas 1:19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
Jas 1:20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
Jas 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
Jas 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.



If a man is born again by the Spirit, he has no need of learning about salvation. He is already saved.

Paul says the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, Romans 1:16. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, Romans 10:17. Therefore, a man hears the word first, then develops faith.

How can faith come by hearing the Word, and still need to be developed? Not all who hear receive faith...why? Since faith comes by hearing the Word, why do some hear the gospel and still have no faith? Certainly there is nothing wrong with the gospel, so there must be a problem in the hearing?

Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.



When he obeys the gospel by believing in Jesus as the Son of the Living God (Matt. 16:16-18), confessing Him publicly (Matt. 10:32-33; Rom. 10:9-10), repents (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 17:30), and is baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16) he is added to the church by Jesus Himself (Acts 2:41,47).

That is how one is born again, according to the scriptures.

How do spiritually dead men, in bondage to Satan, sin, and death believe, so they can confess, repent and be baptized?

Many Blessings,
RW

awestruckchild
Oct 30th 2008, 09:17 PM
Paintdiva, before I answer the rest of your post, let me ask a clarifying question:

If we must have the Holy Spirit come and teach us by some method other than through the Bible, what need do we have of the Bible?

Also, how do you account for two "Holy Spirit-led teachers" who teach conflicting things?

Thanks!

We need the bible to hear the good news. If we could not pick it up and read it or hear the gospel being spoken by another who has read it, we wouldn't ever hear the gospel! But the Holy Spirit doesn't just use the bible to teach-He uses life too. But He recalls verses to mind and shows how they apply to our life and our true spiritual life.

One or the other of them is not being taught solely by the Holy Spirit and mens teachings have crept in apart from what the Holy Spirit has taught.
Or, as in the case with many I have heard "preach", they never met the Holy Spirit - they only met "seminary."

drew
Oct 30th 2008, 09:24 PM
How do spiritually dead men, in bondage to Satan, sin, and death believe, so they can confess, repent and be baptized?
Precisely because they are not dead in the ways needed to do those things.

Obviously, the unredeemed human being cannot be described as "totally" dead. If so, then there are a lot of dead people driving cars, solving crossword puzzles, and making a raft of other complex decisions.

So we can dismiss this notion that "spiritually dead" = "totally dead" or even "cognitively dead".

The manifest facts of life prove, even apart from the Scriptures, that the unredeemed are in fact, alive.

So then the question becomes this: What is the scriptural evidence that unredeemed man, who is clearly "spiritually" dead, is dead in the specific sense that he cannot freely respond to grace.

And I double dares ya to try Ephesians 2:3......:D

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 09:31 PM
[/COLOR]

Hi Matt,

I would say our faith matures when we hear and obey because we have received the free gift of salvation from above. In order for our faith to grow to maturity it must first exist. From where does it come? One who is spiritually dead in trespasses and sins, and in bondage to Satan, sin and death may possess natural faith, but he/she does not possess supernatural saving faith.


Roger, this "natural faith" and "supernatural saving faith" is a difference I do not see distinguished in the scriptures.

If action of the Holy Spirit upon a man is all that is needed for salvation, the Word of God (the Bible) is sort of pointless, is it not? Why the need for the Bible?

Yes, in order for faith to grow, it must first exist. When does it begin to exist? Why, when one hears the Word of God and allows it to work within himself. Thus, James says to "receive the implanted word" and "be doers of the word, and not hearers only." True, every good and perfect gift comes down from the Father of Lights, but isn't the Bible a good and perfect gift?

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


How can faith come by hearing the Word,

Now, scripture plainly says faith comes by hearing the Word. That is what Romans 10:17 says clearly.


and still need to be developed?

Because the basic facts of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4) are what must be believed, and gospel preaches teach man's response to this gospel (belief, repentance, open confession of Christ and baptism into Christ for the remission of sins). Once this happens, one is a child of God, and God's word continues to be a guide for right, God-honoring living.


Not all who hear receive faith...why? Since faith comes by hearing the Word, why do some hear the gospel and still have no faith? Certainly there is nothing wrong with the gospel, so there must be a problem in the hearing?

Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Because not all will forsake the world and follow Christ. Not all will deny the world and take up his cross. Jesus said that not everyone who says to Him, "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of God, but those who do the will of the Father will enter, Matt. 7:21. Notice that Jesus says he who "does" the will of the Father. That requires actions, not just simple consent to the facts of the gospel.


How do spiritually dead men, in bondage to Satan, sin, and death believe, so they can confess, repent and be baptized?

Paul says:

Rom 6:16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.
Rom 6:18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

We are slaves to whom we present ourselves to obey! We are free to choose! God's word is quick and powerful. But He has given us the choice to respond to that power, or reject it. We will be responsible.

If man is forced to believe, or forced to disbelieve, there will be room for accusations against God in that day of judgment. But if He has given us choice, then who is to blame if we end up in hell? That's right. We are.

RogerW
Oct 30th 2008, 09:35 PM
The bottom line regarding infant baptism is that the Bible does not teach that we should baptize infants so by doing that you are doing it by your own tradition and not because scripture says we should.

Hi Eric,

The same can be said of baby dedication ceremonies. But I believe you are mistaken, because you look for infant baptism instead of looking for covenantal continuity. There is no verse in the Bible that specifically says we are baptize infants, but there are many passages of Scripture that show us that God has always included infants, and in fact whole households in His covenant body. Instead of looking for "infant baptism" in the Bible ask yourself if the covenant God made with Abraham is one continuous covenant, and does it include infants? Also ask yourself if whole household baptisms never included infants of believers?

Many Blessings,
RW

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 09:37 PM
We need the bible to hear the good news.

What is the good news, paintdiva? I know you know it is the gospel of Jesus Christ. This gospel is the power of God unto salvation, Romans 1:16.

Therefore, how can the Holy Spirit save us, apart from the hearing of the Word of God, the gospel of salvation?


If we could not pick it up and read it or hear the gospel being spoken by another who has read it, we wouldn't ever hear the gospel!

Exactly! We agree. Without the Bible, salvation would not be possible, because the Bible contains the teaching of God that leads to salvation. The operative force in salvation is the shed blood of Jesus Christ. The means by which the gospel is communicated to us today is through the Bible, which originated from the Holy Spirit.


But the Holy Spirit doesn't just use the bible to teach-He uses life too. But He recalls verses to mind and shows how they apply to our life and our true spiritual life.

This is where we will differ. Surely the Holy Spirit teaches you through the scriptures. You say He recalls verses to mind, but that is simply, once again, being taught through the scriptures, isn't it?


One or the other of them is not being taught solely by the Holy Spirit and mens teachings have crept in apart from what the Holy Spirit has taught.
Or, as in the case with many I have heard "preach", they never met the Holy Spirit - they only met "seminary."

How do you tell them apart, paintdiva?

awestruckchild
Oct 30th 2008, 09:47 PM
[quote=Matt14;1847259]Roger, this "natural faith" and "supernatural saving faith" is a difference I do not see distinguished in the scriptures.

Natural faith is based on our experience of the how the world works. You know the old example: If I did not have "faith" or expectation that a chair would hold me, I would not sit in it without a thought or care as I do.

"Supernatural saving faith" is something we are not capable of until we are healed of our blindness by God Himself.

If action of the Holy Spirit upon a man is all that is needed for salvation, the Word of God (the Bible) is sort of pointless, is it not? Why the need for the Bible?

Jesus is the word. He is the truth. The Holy Spirit has to guide us to the truth. If you don't have the Holy Spirit you are not Christs!

Yes, in order for faith to grow, it must first exist. When does it begin to exist? Why, when one hears the Word of God and allows it to work within himself. Thus, James says to "receive the implanted word" and "be doers of the word, and not hearers only." True, every good and perfect gift comes down from the Father of Lights, but isn't the Bible a good and perfect gift?

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.



Now, scripture plainly says faith comes by hearing the Word. That is what Romans 10:17 says clearly.



Because the basic facts of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4) are what must be believed, and gospel preaches teach man's response to this gospel (belief, repentance, open confession of Christ and baptism into Christ for the remission of sins). Once this happens, one is a child of God, and God's word continues to be a guide for right, God-honoring living.



Because not all will forsake the world and follow Christ. Not all will deny the world and take up his cross. Jesus said that not everyone who says to Him, "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of God, but those who do the will of the Father will enter, Matt. 7:21. Notice that Jesus says he who "does" the will of the Father. That requires actions, not just simple consent to the facts of the gospel.

There is one thing God wants from us - to believe in the One He has sent. This is His will and it is all we can do - cling to the One He sent to show us, teach us, lead us, save us.


Paul says:

Rom 6:16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.
Rom 6:18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

We are slaves to whom we present ourselves to obey! We are free to choose! God's word is quick and powerful. But He has given us the choice to respond to that power, or reject it. We will be responsible.

I just can't quite understand why you wouldn't want the Holy Spirit but instead would want to try to convince others they don't need Him!

awestruckchild
Oct 30th 2008, 09:48 PM
Well, I've done it again to your quote box. I will keep trying to figure it out. Sorry

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 09:55 PM
I just can't quite understand why you wouldn't want the Holy Spirit but instead would want to try to convince others they don't need Him!

Paintdiva, it is difficult to pick out your comments from the post, but I will look at this one for a moment.

Where did I say such a thing? If you look at my posts, you will not find such a statement or believe in anything I've said.

Jesus told the apostles they would have the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them into all truth, and to bring to their minds ALL THINGS that Jesus taught them. You can find these statements made to the apostles in John 14:26; 16:13.

The apostles were brought into all truth, and they taught the perfect truth. This perfect truth was committed to writing, and this is the Bible.

Now, since the Bible is given by the work of the Holy Spirit, of course He is needed! But when we obey the truth He communicated to us, in other words when we believe, repent, confess Christ as Lord and are baptized, we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), which is the indwelling of the Spirit.

I would never say we do not need the Holy Spirit. He is the Comforter, He strengthens us (Eph. 3:16), and helps us to pray when we do not know how to pray (Romans 8:26), and He is the seal of our salvation (2 Cor. 1:22).

Never would I say He is not needed. That would be blasphemy.

But we must recognize when He comes to us. Acts 2:38 says He comes after we repent and are baptized.

No, I am here to convince folks that they DO need Him!

RogerW
Oct 30th 2008, 10:34 PM
Roger, this "natural faith" and "supernatural saving faith" is a difference I do not see distinguished in the scriptures.

If action of the Holy Spirit upon a man is all that is needed for salvation, the Word of God (the Bible) is sort of pointless, is it not? Why the need for the Bible?

Matt, you are mistaken. It is not action of the Holy Spirit without the Word, it is action of the Holy Spirit through the Word.

The natural man (in the flesh) cannot receive the things of the Spirit; i.e. the Word of truth, for these things can only be Spiritually discerned. So without the Spirit we are left in spiritual darkness, and we cannot understand the things of God, or come to Christ for life.

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.



Yes, in order for faith to grow, it must first exist. When does it begin to exist? Why, when one hears the Word of God and allows it to work within himself. Thus, James says to "receive the implanted word" and "be doers of the word, and not hearers only." True, every good and perfect gift comes down from the Father of Lights, but isn't the Bible a good and perfect gift?

But you have not answered my question. Where does saving faith come from? We both agree that faith comes by hearing the Word of God. So, why do some hear the Word and remain without faith? Since faith comes by hearing the Word, why do some hear through preaching and remain in unbelief? Don't evade or dance around the question, please answer it. If faith exists because some allow it to work within them, why isn't this true of every man who hears?

Heb 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

Yes James does say to "receive the implanted word (vs 21)"...he also tells us, "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures (vs 18)." So we are able to receive the implanted Word because of His own will He implanted [produced/generated] us with the Word of Truth. Did you understand that? We could only receive the implanted Word because by His own will we had been generated by that Word. "Begat He" is the same word used in verse 15 "bringeth forth".

Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.



Because the basic facts of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4) are what must be believed, and gospel preaches teach man's response to this gospel (belief, repentance, open confession of Christ and baptism into Christ for the remission of sins). Once this happens, one is a child of God, and God's word continues to be a guide for right, God-honoring living.

You still have not shown how some can hear, believe, repent and confess, while the natural man cannot.



Because not all will forsake the world and follow Christ. Not all will deny the world and take up his cross. Jesus said that not everyone who says to Him, "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of God, but those who do the will of the Father will enter, Matt. 7:21. Notice that Jesus says he who "does" the will of the Father. That requires actions, not just simple consent to the facts of the gospel.

Not all will? None will! Every man is born in Adam without spiritual life. Unless the Lord makes man willing to come to Him for life, no man will come! Who can do the will of the Father unless He draws them to hear, gives them ears to hear through the power of the Word and the Holy Spirit, making them willing to repent and turn to Christ that they might have life?



Paul says:

Rom 6:16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.
Rom 6:18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

We are slaves to whom we present ourselves to obey! We are free to choose! God's word is quick and powerful. But He has given us the choice to respond to that power, or reject it. We will be responsible.

You'll have to explain this so called freedom to choose to me. We are either in bondage to Satan, sin and death, or we are servants of our Lord. While in bondage to Satan, sin and death we can never choose to turn to Christ for life. Christ must first bind Satan, and set us free, then we willingly, even freely choose Christ for life. Salvation is not presented in Scripture as an offer. Christ tells us repeatedly "I GIVE them eternal life", but we never find Christ saying "I offer them eternal, if they will accept it."



If man is forced to believe, or forced to disbelieve, there will be room for accusations against God in that day of judgment. But if He has given us choice, then who is to blame if we end up in hell? That's right. We are.

No force involved, we willingly choose to follow Satan while in spiritual death, delighting in and even loving our sins. But when Christ gives us life we willingly choose to follow Him, because our hearts have been changed, and our desire is now to do the will of God.

Many Blessings,
RW

Matt14
Oct 30th 2008, 10:59 PM
Matt, you are mistaken. It is not action of the Holy Spirit without the Word, it is action of the Holy Spirit through the Word.

You see, I would agree with the bold statement above. The Holy Spirit works on hearts today through the written word of God, convicting them of sin.

This is WAY different from a direct operation of the Holy Spirit, which you later seem to advocate.

So do you agree with Romans 10:17, that faith comes AFTER hearing the word of God? Do you believe a man can be saved BEFORE he hears the word of God?


The natural man (in the flesh) cannot receive the things of the Spirit; i.e. the Word of truth, for these things can only be Spiritually discerned. So without the Spirit we are left in spiritual darkness, and we cannot understand the things of God, or come to Christ for life.

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

This passage would need a deeper study before we could truly discuss it. In my understanding of the context, Paul is comparing the inspired apostles (the spiritual man, the one brought into all truth by the Spirit) with the non-inspired man (all of us). Read it in the proper context, and see if that does not make sense.

Paul is not talking about a man who received direct operation of the Spirit, and a man who has not. He is talking about the inspired apostles, as opposed to one who must receive the word from the apostles.

Read a little more of the context, and you will see this is true:

1Co 2:6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
1Co 2:8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Notice Paul says we speak the wisdom of God, as opposed to earthly wisdom.


But you have not answered my question. Where does saving faith come from? We both agree that faith comes by hearing the Word of God. So, why do some hear the Word and remain without faith? Since faith comes by hearing the Word, why do some hear through preaching and remain in unbelief? Don't evade or dance around the question, please answer it. If faith exists because some allow it to work within them, why isn't this true of every man who hears?

I don't appreciate the old "dancing around the question" accusations. I thought it would be a little longer before those started coming out. Let's keep it on an even keel.

Faith comes from hearing and hearing by the Word of God. That's where it comes from. When a man hears the truth through God's word, he has been taught. He then has a choice. If he is willing to submit to God, he develops faith. If he does not, he does not develop faith. It is that simple.


Heb 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

Notice in this passage the Hebrew writer is talking about the children of Israel. Their unbelief was not simply not believing in God. No, their unbelief was disobedience, even though they knew the truth! We can see this in the rest of the book of Hebrews.


Yes James does say to "receive the implanted word (vs 21)"...he also tells us, "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures (vs 18)." So we are able to receive the implanted Word because of His own will He implanted [produced/generated] us with the Word of Truth. Did you understand that? We could only receive the implanted Word because by His own will we had been generated by that Word. "Begat He" is the same word used in verse 15 "bringeth forth".

And yet, Peter says you have purified your souls in obeying the truth:

1Pe 1:22 Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart,
1Pe 1:23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,


You still have not shown how some can hear, believe, repent and confess, while the natural man cannot.

ALL men can.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.


Not all will? None will! Every man is born in Adam without spiritual life. Unless the Lord makes man willing to come to Him for life, no man will come!

Scriptures say something different. Jesus Himself said:

Mat 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

Teke
Oct 31st 2008, 12:11 AM
"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." -- Romans 10:17

That would seem to be proof that infants do not have faith that "cries out to God."

But since there is no such thing as "inherited sin guilt," babies are in no need of baptism. They have not reached an age to understand Christ's sacrifice, no have they sinned.

All the points I've made in this thread would not exclude an infant from baptism by any human logic. The scripture you've referenced doesn't state that infants can't hear the Word. Their baptism would be to place them into the Body to grow in their faith, not because of sin. Sin is not a prerequisite for baptism. Jesus was sinless and He was baptized.

Veretax
Oct 31st 2008, 12:12 AM
I feel I should remind folks that when the word is being preached to the lost, that it is not our words alone, but the Holy Spirit testifies along with us.

Romans 8:14-19: The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit (we have a spirit too), that we are the child of God.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father." 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
17 and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.




Belief, repentance and public confession of Christ are also commands of God. Are they necessary for salvation?



All I'm asking is for you to examine the scriptures with me on this point. Where do the scriptures say baptism is a sign to a local assembly that you were identifying yourself with Christ?

Think about the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. Was he being baptized to identify himself with a local congregation?

You imply a separation where I believe there is not one. Belief, faith and repentance, I believe are all part of the same action. Simply confessing ones sins does not save. In fact I've seen people who were catholic, who were happy about having confessed their sins, then go right back and do them again. That is surely not repentance.

As for it being a sign, your misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that's all it is intended for, but I believe that water baptism is useful for helping to identify The Church. The problem is water evaporates, unlike circumcision which lasts all your life, so again, I'm not debating the symbolism or sign of Baptism. It is commanded by Christ and I think it should be done as soon after someone is saved as possible, because I believe it is a Good thing to do.


And you are right about the eunuch, James said all he needed to do was Believe in Christ and he could be Baptized. (he was returning home I believe), however, clearly James taught him the Great Commission. What is interesting is the Eunuch says he Believes Jesus is the Son of God. It doesn't say he "repented". Its a shame we don't know more about this Eunuch from scripture.


Hi Eric,

The same can be said of baby dedication ceremonies. But I believe you are mistaken, because you look for infant baptism instead of looking for covenantal continuity. There is no verse in the Bible that specifically says we are baptize infants, but there are many passages of Scripture that show us that God has always included infants, and in fact whole households in His covenant body. Instead of looking for "infant baptism" in the Bible ask yourself if the covenant God made with Abraham is one continuous covenant, and does it include infants? Also ask yourself if whole household baptisms never included infants of believers?

Many Blessings,
RW

I would argue that in each case of "household baptism" that each heard the word and responded in belief before being baptized.

To Answer your question about why some are preached too and still have unbelief, I cite the parable of the sower

Luke 8:11-15
11 "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. 13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. 14 Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity. 15 But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.

For some the word is snatched from the heart by the devil, for some their heart's are already hardened as was pharoahs, and others the seed falls among the thorns, it says what they are, cares, riches, and pleasures of life. So this is why people don't respond to the word. The devil snatches it, or the people's hearts have become hard, or they are so consumed by things in this world that they don't give it the care they should.

Matt14
Oct 31st 2008, 12:34 AM
You imply a separation where I believe there is not one. Belief, faith and repentance, I believe are all part of the same action. Simply confessing ones sins does not save. In fact I've seen people who were catholic, who were happy about having confessed their sins, then go right back and do them again. That is surely not repentance.

True, about catholic confession. However, the Bible does clearly show a difference between belief in Christ, repentance, and confession of Christ publicly.

For instance, remember the Jewish religious leaders in John 12?

Joh 12:42 Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue;
Joh 12:43 for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

Notice many of the rulers believed in Him, but would not confess Him. This shows two different things. Did this belief save them? Of course not, because Jesus also said:

Mat 10:32 "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.
Mat 10:33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

Repentance and belief also seem different, since Jesus said:

Mar 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."

He said repent (turn from your own ways, turn to God) and believe the gospel. Two different things.


As for it being a sign, your misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that's all it is intended for, but I believe that water baptism is useful for helping to identify The Church. The problem is water evaporates, unlike circumcision which lasts all your life, so again, I'm not debating the symbolism or sign of Baptism. It is commanded by Christ and I think it should be done as soon after someone is saved as possible, because I believe it is a Good thing to do.

With all due respect, Veretax, I don't think we are getting to the New Testament meaning of baptism yet, though. It is not for identifying one as belonging to a local congregation. See the eunuch's story, as we discussed.

The only place we see baptism is in connection with conversion of a sinner to Christ. We see it as a precondition to remission of sins and reception of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38. We see the result is a washing away of sins (Acts 22:16) and adding to the Lord's body, the church (Acts 2:41,47; Gal. 3:26-29). It causes one to be dead to sin and alive to Christ (Rom. 6:3-8). It is part of becoming a disciple (Matt. 28:19).

Also, you say baptism should take place as "soon as someone is saved." But the Bible says it must take place in order for someone to be saved! Jesus said it precedes salvation:

Mar 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Just as sure as the words on the page, Jesus said he who believes and is baptized will be saved.

God bless you, Veretax. I'm enjoying studying this with you.

Veretax
Oct 31st 2008, 12:48 AM
True, about catholic confession. However, the Bible does clearly show a difference between belief in Christ, repentance, and confession of Christ publicly.

For instance, remember the Jewish religious leaders in John 12?

Joh 12:42 Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue;
Joh 12:43 for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

Notice many of the rulers believed in Him, but would not confess Him. This shows two different things. Did this belief save them? Of course not, because Jesus also said:

Mat 10:32 "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.
Mat 10:33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.


I see your point about confession, I don't classify confession with the others though.



Repentance and belief also seem different, since Jesus said:

Mar 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."

He said repent (turn from your own ways, turn to God) and believe the gospel. Two different things.



Repentance is as you say turning from your own ways and to God, but isn't turning to God in essence done by belief? Perhaps I'm distilling this too much and its confusing people ... hrms...




With all due respect, Veretax, I don't think we are getting to the New Testament meaning of baptism yet, though. It is not for identifying one as belonging to a local congregation. See the eunuch's story, as we discussed.

Maybe I'm just tired, my words as I reread them are not even making sense as I reread them. I'll rest and try to revisit this with a clearer head tomorrow. Sorry for the confusion, it been a long week.




The only place we see baptism is in connection with conversion of a sinner to Christ. We see it as a precondition to remission of sins and reception of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38. We see the result is a washing away of sins (Acts 22:16) and adding to the Lord's body, the church (Acts 2:41,47; Gal. 3:26-29). It causes one to be dead to sin and alive to Christ (Rom. 6:3-8). It is part of becoming a disciple (Matt. 28:19).

Also, you say baptism should take place as "soon as someone is saved." But the Bible says it must take place in order for someone to be saved! Jesus said it precedes salvation:

Mar 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Just as sure as the words on the page, Jesus said he who believes and is baptized will be saved.

God bless you, Veretax. I'm enjoying studying this with you.


Last thing I'll say before snoozing... Why do you suppose he says those who are do not believe are condemned yet doesn't mention those who believe but are not baptized? This is most curious...

Matt14
Oct 31st 2008, 01:01 AM
Repentance is as you say turning from your own ways and to God, but isn't turning to God in essence done by belief? Perhaps I'm distilling this too much and its confusing people ... hrms...

Well, remember those guys in John 12:42? They believed in Christ, but they certainly did not repent and turn to God. Though they believed, the still loved the praise of man more than God. So while they had belief, they did not have public confession nor repentance.


Maybe I'm just tired, my words as I reread them are not even making sense as I reread them. I'll rest and try to revisit this with a clearer head tomorrow. Sorry for the confusion, it been a long week.

I completely understand. I'm getting a little punchy too. Lord willing, we can talk about this more when we are fresh.


Last thing I'll say before snoozing... Why do you suppose he says those who are do not believe are condemned yet doesn't mention those who believe but are not baptized? This is most curious...

I think it's because only those who believe are candidates for baptism. Those that do not believe are condemned already, they will not be led to obedience.

Jesus gave two classes of people in Mark 16:16: One that believes and is baptized, and one that does not believe. A non-believer can be baptized all he wants, it won't help. It must be done in faith.

And while Jesus outlined two classes, notice He did not outline a third class: one who believes and is not baptized. You see, those type of people seem to fit into the same class as the rulers in John 12:42.

Have a good rest!

RogerW
Oct 31st 2008, 01:02 AM
I would argue that in each case of "household baptism" that each heard the word and responded in belief before being baptized.

Veretax, that simply is not the case.

Ac 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
Ac 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

(1.) Her believing is particularly mentioned.
(2.) It is not intimated that they believed. On the contrary, it is strongly implied that they did not.
(3.) It is manifestly implied that they were baptized because she believed. It was the offering of her family to the Lord. It is just such an account as would now be given of a household or family that were baptized on the faith of the parent.



To Answer your question about why some are preached too and still have unbelief, I cite the parable of the sower

Luke 8:11-15
11 "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. 13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. 14 Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity. 15 But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.

For some the word is snatched from the heart by the devil, for some their heart's are already hardened as was pharoahs, and others the seed falls among the thorns, it says what they are, cares, riches, and pleasures of life. So this is why people don't respond to the word. The devil snatches it, or the people's hearts have become hard, or they are so consumed by things in this world that they don't give it the care they should.

1) Some hear and when they don't understand the devil takes away the word out of their hearts. Why can they not understand while some can understand, believe and are saved?
2) Some hear and believe for a time but since they have no root they wither and die. What is the significance of having no root? Why didn't they have a root like others who do, and believe and are saved?
3) Some hear but are so consumed with the things of this life that they bring no fruit to maturity. Why can some hear and mature, but these do not?
4) Finally there are those who "hear" the Word, have a noble and good heart, and bear fruit.

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Ro 10:17). Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). It is the Spirit that quickens (gives life), the flesh profits nothing (Jo 6:63). Hearing the Word and believing comes from the power of the Word and Holy Spirit, yet many hear and never believe, while others hear, believe and are given life...why? There is no free will involved here, because man is either in bondage to Satan, or a servant of the Lord. And man can only freely choose according to whom he belongs to.

Why do some men hear and don't understand the Word? Why are some permitted to hear, believe for a time, but have no root? Why when some hear, they cannot let go of this life even for a short time? And even though every man is born in Adam, fallen, dead in trespasses and sins, yet the Word penetrates the hearts of only some, giving only some life, and ability to bear fruit...why?

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Oct 31st 2008, 01:48 AM
You see, I would agree with the bold statement above. The Holy Spirit works on hearts today through the written word of God, convicting them of sin.

This is WAY different from a direct operation of the Holy Spirit, which you later seem to advocate.

So do you agree with Romans 10:17, that faith comes AFTER hearing the word of God? Do you believe a man can be saved BEFORE he hears the word of God?

Matt the verse says, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." "By" hearing is not after hearing, but rather the origination of hearing. How does this happen? Supernaturally! The Holy Spirit works (gives life) through the Word.

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.




This passage would need a deeper study before we could truly discuss it. In my understanding of the context, Paul is comparing the inspired apostles (the spiritual man, the one brought into all truth by the Spirit) with the non-inspired man (all of us). Read it in the proper context, and see if that does not make sense.

Paul is not talking about a man who received direct operation of the Spirit, and a man who has not. He is talking about the inspired apostles, as opposed to one who must receive the word from the apostles.

Read a little more of the context, and you will see this is true:

1Co 2:6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
1Co 2:8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Notice Paul says we speak the wisdom of God, as opposed to earthly wisdom.

You are mistaken, Paul is clearly speaking of the operation of the Spirit within the hearts of all believers.

1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.



I don't appreciate the old "dancing around the question" accusations. I thought it would be a little longer before those started coming out. Let's keep it on an even keel.

Please forgive my shortness. Can you tell me why some men hear the Word of God and receive faith, just as Ro 10:17 tells us, yet others hear and remain in unbelief? If faith comes by hearing then why do only some men, who are all born in Adam, fallen, dead in trespasses and sins, hear, and receive the promised faith through hearing the Word?



Faith comes from hearing and hearing by the Word of God. That's where it comes from. When a man hears the truth through God's word, he has been taught. He then has a choice. If he is willing to submit to God, he develops faith. If he does not, he does not develop faith. It is that simple.

It's not that simple at all! Because no man born in Adam can choose to come to Christ for life, unless he is enabled through the power of the Word and Spirit working together to make him willing.



Notice in this passage the Hebrew writer is talking about the children of Israel. Their unbelief was not simply not believing in God. No, their unbelief was disobedience, even though they knew the truth! We can see this in the rest of the book of Hebrews.

Every man born in Adam is disobedient until God changes our unbelief. Every man is without excuse (Ro 1), because every man knows of God and His Divine power. But no man will glorify Him as God or worship Him. All men choose to supress the knowledge of God, and why he will be condemned. If the only evidence that fallen man is ever given is through nature, conscience, and history it is enough to leave him without excuse for not beliving God. He will not believe because he loves his sin more than He loves God.



And yet, Peter says you have purified your souls in obeying the truth:

1Pe 1:22 Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart,
1Pe 1:23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,

How have they purified their souls? Through their own power? No! In obeying the truth...how? Through the Spirit! Having been born again through the Word of God living and abiding in them forever.

1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
1Pe 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.




ALL men can.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

The verse does not say "ALL men can." It says, "let him who hears". That's a bit different then saying all men can come. Because we know that not all men hear.



Scriptures say something different. Jesus Himself said:

Mat 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

No man is willing while still fallen in Adam. Christ is more than willing, but unless we are made willing through the power of the Word and Spirit we remain unwilling to come to Christ for life.

Many Blessings,
RW

awestruckchild
Oct 31st 2008, 03:04 AM
Matt14-

I said I had never had a water baptism but that I had definitely received the Holy Spirit.

Then you asked which I thought was a more reliable source-how I felt or thought or the bible.

I took this to mean that you believe the Holy Spirit in me and His voice is not safe to follow, as if His voice is merely a feeling or thought I have.

So I answered the question as if you had literally asked: Which is more reliable: the Holy Spirit or the bible? This was not your actual question but it was the way I interpreted it.

So I answered that I would have to say neither if that was the question because I could not even understand the bible in any but a human way without the Spirit to teach me the deeper spiritual truth of it.

Then you said that we can understand the bible and that God fully expects us to do so.

To which I answered that we can only understand it humanly, which is not the understanding He desires us to have.

Then you said:" If we must have the Holy Spirit come and teach us by some other method than through the bible, what need do we have of the bible?"

Where you can't understand me seems to be when I try to explain how we (each person separately and for himself), needs to quite literally have the Holy Spirit in them and learn in literal experience of it, what exactly the vs. means: My sheep hear my voice. By this I am speaking quite literally about a spiritually true thing, with the best human words I can find.

What I mean is, we are human-born spiritually dead after our own kind. We can only take the words of the biblein this manner. We have no other way or choice. But the only way to understand them truly, not humanly, is through the Holy Spirit literally in us, showing us.

We are flesh(human)
God is Spirit.
The flesh(human), which is all we are, cannot understand words that are Spirit and the true life.
We think we truly understand, but we don't.

One example of this is how for a long time, we thought "Thou shalt not murder" meant exactly, literally, humanly - Do not stab, bludgeon or strangle another human being.

But then Jesus came with the true and spirit of those words and gave us a real shocker - anger toward another is murder. He showed us we were only seeing the words humanly but that they went much deeper than that - into our very heart and mind.

We were interpreting the words humanly and thinking we were following His commandment but in truth and spirit we were not.

He has many things like this to show us and teach us. Each verse of the whole bible goes deeper in this way and there is absolutely no way that the flesh, which is enmity toward God, can comprehend without the Spirit to show us.

It is not just flowery speech when He said we would know His voice if we were His.

Butch5
Oct 31st 2008, 03:17 AM
Surrendering one's will to Christ. Believing and trusting in Him with all one's heart, soul and mind. Why are you asking me these questions?

OK, we have surrendering one's will.

Can you explain what believing and trusting in Hem with all of one' heart?

I am asking you these questions to understand "exactly" what it is you believe. You talk in canned sentences and it is hard to nail down what you are saying.

Butch5
Oct 31st 2008, 03:20 AM
I spoke of both what it is and what results from it. Why don't you tell me what you think is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Let me rephrase the question, how does the baptism of the Spirit take place? What is the process?

RogerW
Oct 31st 2008, 04:29 AM
This is where you are clearly wrong. How can you try to say that people aren't condemned for not believing in Christ when scripture clearly says otherwise?

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

How much more clear can it be?

Hi Eric,

Are we condemned already because Christ offered us salvation and we rejected? No! We do not believe on Him and are condemned already because we do not come to the light because we love the darkness rather than the light, because our deeds are evil. Everyone that does evil hates the light and will not come to the light. This is the state of every man born in Adam, fallen and dead in trespasses and sins. Unless we are brought to the light supernaturally we remain in our sins without His righteous blood to cover our sins.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

He that believes comes to the light, and it is made known that his deeds are wrought (effect) in God, not in himself. How else can man come to the light, but through the grace of God?

Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

We are not condemned because we sin, we are condemned because we have no one to atone for our sin. We do not believe in Him because we love our sins, and will not come to Him for life. So again, we are not condemned because we do not believe in Him, we do not believe in Him because we are condemned already because we are still in our sins.


Is this really what you believe? Everything you've said about this before seemed to indicate that you believe that they do not or will not because they can not.

Eric, no one will come to Him unless He enables them, they will not because they don't want to. They could come IF they wanted to, but they will not because they don't want to. And they don't want to because they cannot.



See? Here you are saying that man cannot come to God while just a little bit earlier you said it isn't that he cannot but that he will not. You contradicted yourself.

It's not a contradiction Eric. He will not because he cannot, unless he/she is born again!



Scripture teaches that the Lord wants every man to repent (2 Peter 3:9, Acts 17:30) and to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). But you say that He does not give every man the ability to repent and be saved. Why would He desire something that He supposedly prevented from being possible?

But every man will not repent and be saved...why? Eric, no man will be able to stand in the Judgment and say, "I could not come to You for life because you did not give me the ability to repent and be saved." Every man is in the same condition, and no man can come to Him unless He enables them to. God is not the reason no man can or will come to Him. The fault is within fallen man, we love our sin more than we want to come to the Light for life.

All mankind is without hope, if left to ourselves, because no man can or will come to Him of ourselves. But, God desires to have a people for Himself, a people to show His love and glory to, so He has determined to save some people for Himself, despite the fact that none of want Him. Rather than leaving every man unwilling to come to Him for life, He makes some of them willing, by giving them a new heart that longs for Him.

I don't know why God determined to save only some men, but whether we believe in free will or Sovereign Grace, the fact remains that not all men will be saved. And salvation is by grace, so God clearly could have saved every man, but He does not. The fault is not with God, but with fallen man. The real amazing thing is that God saves any man, because every man deserves His wrath, and yet in His love, He saves some men.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Oct 31st 2008, 04:32 AM
Let me rephrase the question, how does the baptism of the Spirit take place? What is the process?

Greetings Butch,

Baptism of the Spirit takes place when we are born again. When are we born again? When we are given ears to hear His voice through the power of the Word and the Spirit.

Many Blessings,
RW

Butch5
Oct 31st 2008, 04:36 AM
Greetings Butch,

Baptism of the Spirit takes place when we are born again. When are we born again? When we are given ears to hear His voice through the power of the Word and the Spirit.

Many Blessings,
RW

Hi Roger,

I am looking for a specific answer from John. However I will get to your other post tomorrow.

Lamplighter
Oct 31st 2008, 05:35 AM
Let me rephrase the question, how does the baptism of the Spirit take place? What is the process?

The baptism in the Holy Spirit is the empowering for service that takes place in the life of the Christian. It can take place at the moment of faith in Christ as in the case of the first Gentile convert, Cornelius; but traditionally and experientially it follows repentance, saving faith, and baptism (see Hebrews 6:1-2). It enables a believer to witness to the Lord's salvation and to demonstrate one or more of the nine gifts, or manifestations, of the Holy Spirit (see I Corinthians 12:7-10). Just as the indwelling Spirit reproduces the life of Jesus, the outpoured, or baptizing, Spirit reproduces the ministry of Jesus.
To illustrate, if I had a glass of water and took a swallow, then the water would be inside me. If, on the other hand, I went down to the beach and stepped into the ocean, then I would be in the water. We receive, as it were, a drink of the Spirit when we are saved, but when we are baptized in the Spirit, it is as if that initial drink becomes an ocean that completely surrounds us.
When we give ourselves to Jesus, the Holy Spirit comes to live within us. The Holy Spirit places us into Jesus. In turn Jesus immerses us in the power of the Holy Spirit, and from the experience comes the ability to reproduce the works of Jesus, including miracles and healings (see John 14:12-16, Acts 1:5,8).
Just as there are nine attributes of the fruit of the Spirit, there are nine gifts of the Spirit. Before He ascended into heaven, Jesus said, "John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:5). He also said, "You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you: And you shall be witnesses to Me" (Acts 1:8). When the day of Pentecost came, Jesus' apostles were all together in the same house. There was the sound of a mighty wind, and then tongues of fire sat upon them. They "began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4).
In subsequent instances, when this experience came upon the people, it seemed as if the Spirit of God activated their speech. First of all, this showed that they had been empowered to witness for the Lord. Second, their higher speech centers had been brought under the control of Jesus Christ. As James said, "If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man" (James 3:2). The tongues of these people had been brought under the Lord's control.
Finally, by the words they spoke, they were able to do miracles. That is because the spoken word brings about healings, miracles, and the works of power that Jesus did. All of this is encompassed in the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

You need to do a number of things in order to receive this blessing.
First, you need to be born again. The person who is going to be filled with the Spirit must have the indwelling Spirit and must belong to Jesus.
The second thing you have to do is to ask. The Bible says, "Ask, and it will be given to you" (Luke 11:9).
The third thing you have to do is surrender. The apostle Paul made this need clear in the book of Romans when he said, "Present your bodies a living sacrifice." (Romans 12:1)
Fourth, you must be willing to obey the Spirit. God does not give this power to someone and then say, "You can take the part you like and leave the part you do not like." If you want to be immersed in the Spirit, you need to be prepared to obey the Spirit.
Fifth, you need to believe. The apostle Paul, speaking to the Galatians, said, "Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith" (Galatians 3:2)? The answer, obviously, is faith. You have to believe that if you ask, you will receive.
Finally, you have to exercise what God has given you.
Having asked, having received, having been willing to obey, and having believed, you need to respond in a biblical fashion.

Veretax
Oct 31st 2008, 11:28 AM
Okay, I feel better after some rest, and I’ll be honest what I’m really wanting to do is hit that reset button. I feel that I’ve fallen into that trap that forums in general sometimes present, in that we respond to comments , but at times are not responding with a mind to the original intent of the message.

You asked me how Baptism was a sign or a Symbol. I had the chance to review a few commentaries, even those in my study bible and I found it very interesting, that the vast majority of them say what in essence Paul said in Romans. That we are baptized into the Body of Christ. Now I do not take those commentaries as inspired, but I’m reminded of things that I know, in Scripture and their analysis does seem to line up with what I’ve been failing to articulate.

I made the error of saying it was only for the local assembly. While it may be true that someone outside the body who comes in and bears witness of a baptism may see that person as now being affiliated with that particular local assembly, even some churches re-baptize their members (for why I don’t know). However, I’ve been arguing from the perspective of what someone outside the body would see. While that may be true of what they believe, that is clearly not the point of Baptism, and I apologize to all and ask your forgiveness for having strayed on a very unfruitful tangent. Baptism is not intended as a sign to unbelievers as Circumcision clearly was. It is a sign to those who are in the Body of Christ, for only those in the Body will recognize its full signifigance.

Now, what does it signify. I say it is a sign, a symbol and a testament. First those who are baptized, are identifying themselves with the body of Christ.

Romans 6:1-10
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

What is Paul saying here? He’s saying that we are baptized to in essence be conformed to his likeness. Not that we are literally crucified, die, are buried, and rise, but that the picture of baptism, pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. So baptism (particularly by immersion) pictures as a symbol of being associated with that image of Christ being buried, and raised again. Now I would not base this belief on one verse, but this is not the only thing Paul has written about Baptism.

Colossians 2:4-12
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Again Paul, uses the analogy of Baptism being a symbol of being buried with Him (Christ) in baptism, in which we are raised with Him through faith in the working of God who Raised Christ from the Dead. So Clearly faith is a picture and associates us directly with the Body of Christ. We know that from Acts and the Gospels that Christ commanded us to make disciples – which I believe means to draw people to salvation so that they can Learn and grow in Christ – and to baptize them. The verse in mark says as many as believe and are baptized are in essence saved, but those that do not believe are condemned. This to me means baptism, while being a sign, is also a work of obedience to Christ. In nearly every case in Acts when someone was saved they were then baptized. So I say that submitting to baptism is something a faithful Christian must do to satisfy in essence a ‘first fruit’ of the Spirit.

1 Peter 3:21-22
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.

Now of interest here is that the parenthetical indicates that baptism is not intended as the removal of the filth of the flesh, and at some point I want to go back and explore whether he’s talking about physical dirt, or the dirt and uncleanness in our hearts, but my main point from this passage is that he says it is the answer of a good conscience to God. Thus, it is a symbol of Christ’s burial and resurrection, and it is a testament, an answer in good conscience to God.

So what about it being a sign? Well, what are we baptized into? We are baptized into and under the name of Christ, in essence signing his name to our lives through Baptism. Its not necessary that you agree with me on this point though, because the other two points alone should be sufficient to prove that all Christians should get baptized.

Now, that mark 16:16 passage. I agree, it is strange that Christ does not mention people who believe and are not baptized, and there can only be a couple of reasons why this is. First it is possible that in Christ’s day there was no argument about baptism, because it was so obvious, Christians obeyed the call to Baptism and accepted it on faith without Question. It is also possible, as we know of some examples, such as what you cited with the rulers who believed in Christ but would not confess him, that many believed in the Idea of Christ, but did not believe in him being and having Lordship over them. I question whether such a person would really have a change in their life. Its like the one who comes forward at an invitation, says a prayer, but they do not follow through on that profession or belief, and As James says, faith without works is dead, therefore we’d have reason to suspect that these folks are not saved. Then I look at revelation, to the Church of Laodicea where Christ in essence says to them get off the fence, I wish you were hot or cold, but because they stay on the fence and won’t commit, he will spew them out.

Those to me seem to be the possibilities of how this happens. I believe that the reason it took 6 years for me to submit to Believers baptism, was because I was not under the preaching of a Church that taught it with emphasis. Therefore I had no reason to question it, I was saved, and it wasn’t that I was denying or avoiding what was commanded, I simply was not disciple properly at that time, but when I finally began to dig into the word and see for myself what scripture said. The events of that ‘Jesus Week’ at college, our revival our Christian fellowship put on at Lumberport, WV, the prayer and praise event we had at the Arboretum, seeing and hearing the Gospel presented a new through Bruce Kuhn’s one man Act on the Gospel of Luke. All these things worked together, even through the message of my pastor at that time to convince me that I needed to step forward and submit.

That Friday or Saturday night, I knew the Lord was calling me to humble myself and submit to Believer’s baptism, and it was not an easy thing for me, an infant baptized, reform taught, Presbyterian to admit too. I prayed that God would not just give me a Strength, but give me the opportunity soon, so that I would not have chance to get cold feed in my decision for him. The timing could not have been coincidental, that Sunday some 12 hours or so later, The pastor gave an invitation on the very thing I had committed, and I knew the Lord was testing and calling me, so I stepped out and submitted to be baptized, and I know it was the right thing.

I know it is the scriptural thing, and part of me was indeed upset at those who taught me when I was just saved for not knowing the scripture, or ignoring these clear passages, but I did what God commanded and urged me to do. That night when I was baptized, was the culmination of several weeks of the Lord working on my heart, of me looking over things a new not that I was looking for a new interpretation, but I was seeking to know the truth, because there was one thing that troubled me about infant baptism. It seemed to me that as Jesus says, “I am the Way, The Truth and The Life”, and “The narrow gate” that God would not leave something as important as baptism up to mans interpretation, so I was trying to see whether what I had been taught at my reformed church was right, or if only Believer’s baptism was right. I have yet to find anything in Scripture where even once, an infant was clearly baptized.

Not once have I found and believe me I’ve looked. To say that Household’s were baptized and that some must have had children, I say hold on. Jesus said not to prohibit children to come to him, they were to receive the message too, and in many passages he even said that we must become like a child to enter the Kingdom. If as is practiced as a tradition of men, is indeed scriptural, surely Luke or Paul or Peter would have cited at least one example of some young person being baptized regardless of belief, but every time I see it, it is after someone believed. Thus I belive the Prescription is clear. With all do respect to our Reformed Faith Friends, you will not find one instance of infant baptism in the NT. You will find some who were being asked by Jews to be Circumcised, and Paul warned that it was wrong and unnecessary, yet nothing on any infant or child without belief being baptized.

John146
Oct 31st 2008, 01:41 PM
Hi Eric,

The same can be said of baby dedication ceremonies. But I believe you are mistaken, because you look for infant baptism instead of looking for covenantal continuity. There is no verse in the Bible that specifically says we are baptize infants, but there are many passages of Scripture that show us that God has always included infants, and in fact whole households in His covenant body. Instead of looking for "infant baptism" in the Bible ask yourself if the covenant God made with Abraham is one continuous covenant, and does it include infants? Also ask yourself if whole household baptisms never included infants of believers?Did you ignore what I showed you from Acts 8 regarding water baptism and who it is intended for, Roger?

Acts 8
36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

How much more clear can it be that only those who believed in Christ with all their heart were supposed to get baptized in water? When it speaks of entire households getting baptized or getting saved (like the prison keeper) do you actually think that it wasn't required of each individual member of the household to believe in order to be saved and baptized? No one is saved because of someone else's belief and no one should get baptized because of someone else's belief, either. Scripture does not teach that. The idea of infant baptism is a manmade doctrine.

John146
Oct 31st 2008, 01:47 PM
All the points I've made in this thread would not exclude an infant from baptism by any human logic. The scripture you've referenced doesn't state that infants can't hear the Word. Their baptism would be to place them into the Body to grow in their faith, not because of sin. Sin is not a prerequisite for baptism. Jesus was sinless and He was baptized.Are you suggesting that parents can decide for their infants to be baptized into the body of Christ? Where does scripture teach this? Each person is responsible and accountable for their own faith.

John146
Oct 31st 2008, 01:55 PM
Paintdiva, it is difficult to pick out your comments from the post, but I will look at this one for a moment.

Where did I say such a thing? If you look at my posts, you will not find such a statement or believe in anything I've said.

Jesus told the apostles they would have the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them into all truth, and to bring to their minds ALL THINGS that Jesus taught them. You can find these statements made to the apostles in John 14:26; 16:13.

The apostles were brought into all truth, and they taught the perfect truth. This perfect truth was committed to writing, and this is the Bible.

Now, since the Bible is given by the work of the Holy Spirit, of course He is needed! But when we obey the truth He communicated to us, in other words when we believe, repent, confess Christ as Lord and are baptized, we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), which is the indwelling of the Spirit.

I would never say we do not need the Holy Spirit. He is the Comforter, He strengthens us (Eph. 3:16), and helps us to pray when we do not know how to pray (Romans 8:26), and He is the seal of our salvation (2 Cor. 1:22).

Never would I say He is not needed. That would be blasphemy.

But we must recognize when He comes to us. Acts 2:38 says He comes after we repent and are baptized.Not in the case of Cornelius and his household or the Samaritans in Acts 8:14-17. We have examples of people receiving the Spirit apart from water baptism yet you say it happens upon water baptism. Why do you ignore the passages that show otherwise?


No, I am here to convince folks that they DO need Him!In other words, you are saying that you don't believe that paintdiva truly received the Spirit, right?

John146
Oct 31st 2008, 01:59 PM
OK, we have surrendering one's will.

Can you explain what believing and trusting in Hem with all of one' heart?

I am asking you these questions to understand "exactly" what it is you believe. You talk in canned sentences and it is hard to nail down what you are saying.I don't think anyone else here is having trouble understanding what I'm saying. If you don't understand what it means to be surrendered to the Lord by putting your faith and trust in Him then I can't help you. Since, for whatever reason, you are not understanding what I'm telling you, why don't you tell me what you believe is required for someone to be saved and then I can tell you if I agree or not.

John146
Oct 31st 2008, 02:03 PM
Let me rephrase the question, how does the baptism of the Spirit take place? What is the process?I believe it takes place when someone repents and puts their faith and trust in Christ as their Lord and Savior. I believe scripture teaches this and it was also my own experience. Now, why don't you tell me how you believe it takes place.

Teke
Oct 31st 2008, 02:51 PM
Are you suggesting that parents can decide for their infants to be baptized into the body of Christ? Where does scripture teach this? Each person is responsible accountable for their own faith.

"Responsible" being the key here. Scripture teaches that Jesus said to obey the commandments. One of which, is to obey or honor your parents. It would seem Jesus felt very strongly about this command, as it is one which he blasted the Pharisee's for turning it into legalism which in turn allowed the son's to not literally have to honor their parents.

Scripture teaches this concept from beginning to end. Parent's now, usually have back up for their decision, called god parents. It is the responsibility of the parents and god parents to make sure the child is brought up in the church.

Especially mothers and grandmothers would never let this go undone. This I know.:)

Veretax
Oct 31st 2008, 03:03 PM
"Responsible" being the key here. Scripture teaches that Jesus said to obey the commandments. One of which, is to obey or honor your parents. It would seem Jesus felt very strongly about this command, as it is one which he blasted the Pharisee's for turning it into legalism which in turn allowed the son's to not literally have to honor their parents.

Scripture teaches this concept from beginning to end. Parent's now, usually have back up for their decision, called god parents. It is the responsibility of the parents and god parents to make sure the child is brought up in the church.

Especially mothers and grandmothers would never let this go undone. This I know.:)

I understand the desire to have your children under the preaching of the Word. The bible speaks plainly that salvation comes by hearing the word of God, so it is only natural that we as Christian parents, who want our Children to follow the right path, should come to church with us. However, you have not explained why they need to be baptized to be brought to church? Remember, Jesus ate with Sinners, those who likely were not yet saved, and the white washed walls known as the Pharisees took offense at it. The Salvation message is for all who are lost, not just those who happen to be born into a family with parents that are Christian.

John146
Oct 31st 2008, 03:18 PM
Hi Eric,

Are we condemned already because Christ offered us salvation and we rejected? No! We do not believe on Him and are condemned already because we do not come to the light because we love the darkness rather than the light, because our deeds are evil. Everyone that does evil hates the light and will not come to the light. This is the state of every man born in Adam, fallen and dead in trespasses and sins. Unless we are brought to the light supernaturally we remain in our sins without His righteous blood to cover our sins.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

He that believes comes to the light, and it is made known that his deeds are wrought (effect) in God, not in himself. How else can man come to the light, but through the grace of God?

Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

We are not condemned because we sin, we are condemned because we have no one to atone for our sin. We do not believe in Him because we love our sins, and will not come to Him for life. So again, we are not condemned because we do not believe in Him, we do not believe in Him because we are condemned already because we are still in our sins. Why do you say that people aren't condemned because they don't believe in Him when Jesus, in John 3:18, said that is exactly the reason they are condemned? Jesus didn't say that we are condemned already because we are still in our sins. Why don't you accept what Jesus said in John 3:18? He clearly said that people are condemned already because they "hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.".


Eric, no one will come to Him unless He enables them, they will not because they don't want to. They could come IF they wanted to, but they will not because they don't want to. And they don't want to because they cannot. Scripture doesn't teach that. Instead, it teaches they don't want to because they will not (Matt 23:37-38). They close their own eyes to the truth (Matt 13:15), choose to remain in their own evil ways instead of humbling themselves before God (Isa 66:2-4) and choose to serve false gods (Joshua 24:15).


It's not a contradiction Eric. He will not because he cannot, unless he/she is born again!The problem with that idea is people are not born again until after they repent and believe. That is where your thinking goes astray because you put the process in the wrong order.


But every man will not repent and be saved...why? Eric, no man will be able to stand in the Judgment and say, "I could not come to You for life because you did not give me the ability to repent and be saved."I agree because all people have the ability to repent and be saved.


Every man is in the same condition, and no man can come to Him unless He enables them to. God is not the reason no man can or will come to Him. The fault is within fallen man, we love our sin more than we want to come to the Light for life. Scripture says that the ones who God enables to come to Him are the ones who put their faith in His Son. Everyone has the ability to believe. But God only brings the ones who believe to Himself. No one comes to the Father except through faith in Christ.


All mankind is without hope, if left to ourselves, because no man can or will come to Him of ourselves.I agree. That's why people need to hear the word of God and they need the Holy Spirit to show them their sin. But some obviously choose to reject what they hear and to resist the Spirit. Why? Because God made it so that they would? No! It is by their own choice. Your doctrine makes God responsible for these people not believing in Christ because He supposedly doesn't give them the ability.


But, God desires to have a people for Himself, a people to show His love and glory to, so He has determined to save some people for Himself, despite the fact that none of want Him.People want Him when they hear about Him through the preaching of His Word. It isn't that people naturally have no interest in eternal life or in ever submitting to a Supreme Being. They need to hear about Him first.


Rather than leaving every man unwilling to come to Him for life, He makes some of them willing, by giving them a new heart that longs for Him. Why only some? I thought God was not a respecter of persons? You believe that He had no desire to save most people which means it was His desire to give them no chance to be saved so that they would end up being punished for eternity in the lake of fire. You have no explanation for why that would be the case. But scripture plainly tells us why: because of people's stubborn and willful refusal to repent and accept the truth of the gospel.


I don't know why God determined to save only some men, but whether we believe in free will or Sovereign Grace, the fact remains that not all men will be saved. And salvation is by grace, so God clearly could have saved every man, but He does not. The fault is not with God, but with fallen man. The real amazing thing is that God saves any man, because every man deserves His wrath, and yet in His love, He saves some men. A truly loving God would make a way for salvation to all people without showing any partiality. Thankfully, that is exactly the God that we have.

John146
Oct 31st 2008, 03:22 PM
"Responsible" being the key here. Scripture teaches that Jesus said to obey the commandments. One of which, is to obey or honor your parents. It would seem Jesus felt very strongly about this command, as it is one which he blasted the Pharisee's for turning it into legalism which in turn allowed the son's to not literally have to honor their parents.

Scripture teaches this concept from beginning to end. Parent's now, usually have back up for their decision, called god parents. It is the responsibility of the parents and god parents to make sure the child is brought up in the church.

Especially mothers and grandmothers would never let this go undone. This I know.:)This didn't answer my question. So I'll ask a different way. Can the parents determine the eternal destiny of their children for them? Or is it the responsibility of each person to make the decision regarding what they believe?

RogerW
Oct 31st 2008, 04:25 PM
Did you ignore what I showed you from Acts 8 regarding water baptism and who it is intended for, Roger?

No Eric I did not ignore what you said regarding Acts 8. Back in post #341 I said, "Eric, I don't deny the validity of believers baptism, this is biblical." What I went on to express is that both believers baptism and infant baptism are biblical and defines those who come into the covenant body of Christ.

Many Blessings,
RW

John146
Oct 31st 2008, 04:41 PM
No Eric I did not ignore what you said regarding Acts 8. Back in post #341 I said, "Eric, I don't deny the validity of believers baptism, this is biblical." What I went on to express is that both believers baptism and infant baptism are biblical and defines those who come into the covenant body of Christ.

Many Blessings,
RWThe covenant body of Christ is comprised only of believers. Infant baptism isn't biblical at all. Not even close.

RogerW
Oct 31st 2008, 06:43 PM
Greetings Veretax,

I certainly appreciate your well reasoned, thoughtful post. I can say without doubt that we are in complete agreement when it comes to believer's baptism. I have never denied that believer's baptism is biblical, and is pictured throughout Scripture.

I believe that when we understand how God has established His ONE Covenant through specific signs, and how those signs were given to every generation, then and only then will we be able to understand why we are commanded to administer the sign(s) to our covenant children.

1. There is, and always has been only one people of God, throughout the ages in both the Old covenant and the New. These are the true Israel, the seed of Abraham.
2. Though differing in form, circumcision and baptism are essentially the same in meaning.
3. God clearly reveals to us in Scripture that the generations of His people, whether Jew or Gentile shall receive the sign of the covenant, circumcision for the generations of His people among the Jews, and baptism when these generations are among every nation of the world, both Jew and Gentile, where there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but one body in Christ.

There are many, many passages of Scripture to clearly develop this line of reasoning. But in an effort to keep this short compare Hosea 1:10,11 with Ro 9:24-26. Hosea prophecy is of ten tribes; Paul explains that these ten tribes are the Church in the New Covenant, gathered from both Jew and Gentile, so the prophecy of Hosea is fulfilled. Compare Jer 31:31-34 with Heb 8:6-13. Jeremiah is speaking specifically to Israel and Judah; but Hebrews is quoting this passage and Israel and Judah have become the Church in the New Covenant. Compare Amos 9:11-15 with Acts 15:13-17. Amos speaks of the restoration of the tabernacle of David and of the possession of Israel of all the heathen, of the return of Israel to their land and of their everlasting possession of it. In Acts 15 James says that this restoration of the tabernacle of David and the possession by Israel of the Gentiles, is now fulfilled, now the Gentiles enter into the fellowship of Christ.

The objection that baptists make against the baptism of infants is not a biblical one, but rather one drawn from their own mind. That is, that baptism is a sign of the forgiveness of sins, or regeneration; therefore it may only be administered to professing believers, or to those who confess their faith. Baptists believe that since many of the infants that are baptized in later life prove they are not children of God, and for this reason it is wrong to administer the sign of baptism to the children of believers before they are of an age of discretion or accountability.

What the Baptist argues against infant baptism should also be argued against infant circumcision. But it cannot because circumcision is by the LORD upon the seed of Abraham in their generations.

Circumcision was a sign of the righteousness which is by faith, of spiritual circumcision of the heart, of regeneration and sanctification, of the cutting away of the old man of sin, of the love of God in a new heart. In ever respect the significance of the old covenant sign is the same as that of baptism. The identity of the two signs, though they differ in form, are proven from the Word of God.

First of all from passages that refer to circumcision only:

Le 26:40,41 If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me; And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:
An uncircumcsied heart is the same as a heart that will not confess sin and iniquity. Of such a heart, therefore, circumcision was a sign.

De 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
Clearly circumcision was a sign of a sanctified heart.

De 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Again, this is very plain. Circumcision was a sign of the work of God's grace in the heart, whereby the heart is filled with love of God.

Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.
In the NT this is the same as saying: put off the old man of sin and put on the new man, which is renewed after the image of God in true righteousness and holiness. Circumcision was a sign of the putting off of the old man of sin.

Ro 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
The sign of circumcision seals the righteousness of faith; that is, God seals in the sign of circumcision, that He justifies the believers by faith and counts his faith for righteousness.

From passages that speak of the significance of baptism:

Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Baptism is a sign of the remission of sins, that is, of the righteousness which is by faith.

Ac 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Baptism is the sign of the washing away of sin, of the righteousness which is by faith, the same as circumcision.

Ro 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Baptism, like circumcision, is the sign of renewal in Christ. In baptism we die with Christ and we rise with Him in newness of life and walk.

Ga 3:27 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Baptism is the sign of putting on Christ, that is, of being renewed in Him.

From passages that simply identify the two, circumcision and baptism:

Col 2:11,12 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
This clearly identifies the signs of baptism and circumcision with respect to their significance. Written to the Church of the New Testament, that believers are circumcised in the spiritual sense of the Word; and that this spiritual circumcision took place when they were buried with Christ in baptism. A more direct proof that circumcision and baptism are essentially the same in meaning, the change from the old into the new covenant; i.e. from the shadows into that of fulfillment.

The Baptist disputes the statement that also occurs in our Baptism Form, namely, that circumcision has been replaced by baptism in the new covenant. Of this the Baptist refuses to be convinced. Yet, nothing could be more evident from Scripture. It is simply a historic fact, that baptism forced circumcision out of the way. When baptism came, circumcision must be discarded. For a time they existed side by side especially in Jewish-Christian communities, and circumcision tried to maintain itself alongside of baptism. But this proved impossible and circumcision was forced to surrender its place in the Church. Why? Because teh Word of God plainly teaches, as has been shown, that essentially baptism has teh same significance as circumcision, that two signs with the same meaning could not exist side by side, that circumcision belongs to the time of the shadows, and therefore finds its fulfillment through baptism. If one still insists that circumcision is necessary for the Christian Church, he could only do so because he has given significance to an element of the law, and sought the righteousness by the law, so that Christ has become of no effect for him. Baptism as being the same sign essentially and having the form proper to the new covenant. So true this is, that the apostle writes that we are circumcised when we are baptized, Col 2:11,12; and that we are the true circumcision, Ph 3:3.

It is the will of God, clearly revealed in His Word, that the seed of Abraham, which is the same throughout the ages, shall receive the sign of the righteousness which is by faith, in their generations.

This is very plain truth revealed in Scripture and verified in all the history of the Church of God in the world from the beginning. That God causes His people to develop in the line of generations. Always He establishes His covenant organically in the line of continued generations. This is made evident from the beginning:

Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed.
This is also clear from the establishment of the covenant with Noah, "And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you and with your seed after you." (Gen 9:9). Again this truth is revealed in Gen 17:7. "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generation for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and to they seed after thee." This is evident from the entire historical line of development, for the line of God's covenant runs in the line of generations, from Seth to Noah, from Shem to Abraham, from Abraham to Israel, from Israel to Christ, and even in the new covenant it is very plain, that God has His people in the line of continued generations. Hence, the Apostle Peter can preach on the day of Pentecost: "The promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call, Acts 2:39.

And when the Lord calls those who are afar off, it is equally true for them: the promise is unto you and to your children. Only in this light can it be understood that we read repeatedly in the Scriptures, that houses were baptized. It matters not at all whether you argue that there were little children in those houses or whether you maintain the opposite. The fact is, that is expressed, God deals with generations. It is only in this same light that everywhere children are considered as belonging to the Church, in the new covenant as well as in the old. God establishes His Church in the line of continued generations.

Does that mean that all the children according to the flesh in those generations are spiritual children of God, and are the seed of Abraham? God forbid that we should teach this, or even maintain that we must suppose it! No, the chldren of the promise are counted for the see, and they are not all Israel that are of Israel. But this true seed of Abraham is found in the generations of God's people.

It is plainly the will of God that these generations of the seed of Abraham shall receive the sign of the covenant, the seal of the righteousness which is by faith, the sign of regeneration, of the putting off of the old man of sin and the putting on of the new man in Christ, of repentance and the forgiveness of sin. This was God's ordinance for Abraham and his seed, "And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thous and they seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee: every man-child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token [sign] of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stanger which is not of thy seed," Gen 17:9-12. In the old covenant then, children, all children that were born in the generations for that seed of Abraham must receive the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness which is by faith, of a new heart, of conversion and sanctification.

And this was never abolished!

That same seed of Abraham still exists, as Scripture shows. The only difference being, that instead of being among national Israel it is among all the nations of the world.

The same everlasting covenant stands still established with that seed of Abraham, that is mentioned in Gen 17:7. It still holds for that seed of Abraham (Gal 3:7), that God establishes His covenant with them in the line of continued generations.

The same sign of the covenant still exists, the only difference being that, appropriate to the new covenant it has changed in form from circumcision into baptism. The essence of the sign was never abolished, the form was. There is still the sign whichis a seal of the righteousness which is by faith, of regeneration and sanctification, of repentance and the washing away of sins.

It still holds according to the plain revelation of Scripture, that the same sign must be administered to the same seed of Abraham in their generations as a sign of God's everlasting covenant with them.

When the Church entered into the new covenant when the seed of Abraham went from only national Israel to all nations, the truth that the seed of Abraham is found in the generations of believers, was plainly revealed and had been brought into practice for centuries. Children were always regarded as belonging to the Church. And this is the reason why in the New Testament you have no special command: be sure to baptize infants. The Church naturally baptized infants. They could never have conceived anything else. A special command to baptize houses, children included, would have been a strange command.

The Baptist must not ask, "Where do you read in the New Testament of a command to baptize infants?"

The burden of proof is entirely with them!

They must prove where and when God ever retracted His promise to Abraham and his seed, that He would establish His covenant in the line of their continued generations; they must prove where and when God ever commanded the Church to discontinue the practice of administering the sign of the righteousness which is by faith to the generations of Abraham's seed, to the children of believers.

Much of the information in this reply comes from: The Biblical Ground for The Baptism of Infants by Rev. Herman Hoeksema.

I hope this little tretise will bless the hearts of all who read.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Oct 31st 2008, 06:58 PM
The covenant body of Christ is comprised only of believers. Infant baptism isn't biblical at all. Not even close.

Hi Eric,

If you are speaking of the Eternal Covenant Body of Christ; i.e. His Bride, the Eternal Church then I would have to agree, only believers will dwell there. If however you are speaking of the covenant body of Christ as found in the church in the world, then I cannot agree, because His kingdom in this world, represented as the church universal is made up of both believers and unbelievers, and truth is they are all baptized members of the body of Christ...outwardly.

Many Blessings,
RW

John146
Oct 31st 2008, 07:43 PM
Hi Eric,

If you are speaking of the Eternal Covenant Body of Christ; i.e. His Bride, the Eternal Church then I would have to agree, only believers will dwell there. If however you are speaking of the covenant body of Christ as found in the church in the world, then I cannot agree, because His kingdom in this world, represented as the church universal is made up of both believers and unbelievers, and truth is they are all baptized members of the body of Christ...outwardly.

Many Blessings,
RWThere is only one body of Christ, Roger. Scripture does not teach such a concept as a covenant body of Christ that includes unbelievers. Where are you coming up with that? I can already anticipate that you would likely answer this by referring to your long post to Veretax. But where does scripture say that baptism is the new circumcision? It doesn't. Another man-made doctrine. Where does it give any examples of infants being baptized? It doesn't. It's a man-made doctrine and nothing more.

Teke
Oct 31st 2008, 07:51 PM
I understand the desire to have your children under the preaching of the Word. The bible speaks plainly that salvation comes by hearing the word of God, so it is only natural that we as Christian parents, who want our Children to follow the right path, should come to church with us. However, you have not explained why they need to be baptized to be brought to church? Remember, Jesus ate with Sinners, those who likely were not yet saved, and the white washed walls known as the Pharisees took offense at it. The Salvation message is for all who are lost, not just those who happen to be born into a family with parents that are Christian.

They don't have to be baptized to be brought to church. They have to be baptized IN the Body of Christ.
And yes, it is "not just" for "those who happen to be born" into a Christian family. It is for all people. But Christian families should already know what they need to do, if their Christians. And this is also how the Lord adds to His Body.

I would certainly hope that Christians are procreating Christians.

Teke
Oct 31st 2008, 07:59 PM
This didn't answer my question. So I'll ask a different way. Can the parents determine the eternal destiny of their children for them?

God certainly gave them responsibility for the child, so apparently they are part of that destiny.


Or is it the responsibility of each person to make the decision regarding what they believe?

That's a given always. :)

John146
Oct 31st 2008, 08:10 PM
God certainly gave them responsibility for the child, so apparently they are part of that destiny.Once again, you didn't really answer my question. Does the faith of the parents ensure that the children will have faith as well? Does baptizing infants somehow make it a certainty or at least more likely that they will eventually be saved?


That's a given always. :)Okay, so then this means that the faith of the parents does not ensure anything because each person is responsible to believe.

Teke
Oct 31st 2008, 09:23 PM
Once again, you didn't really answer my question. Does the faith of the parents ensure that the children will have faith as well? Does baptizing infants somehow make it a certainty or at least more likely that they will eventually be saved?

Okay, so then this means that the faith of the parents does not ensure anything because each person is responsible to believe.

It just means that the parents in their faith have been faithful. He is the Great Shepherd, we are His sheep. Would we say that His sheep have lambs out of His fold. Parent's don't make decisions about their kids based on what they think their kids will think. They make the best decisions for their children by their faith.

It has always been this way. Scripture continually shows the example from beginning to end. If our Christian children should become prodigals, we will wait for their return. ;)

Butch5
Oct 31st 2008, 10:49 PM
I don't think anyone else here is having trouble understanding what I'm saying. If you don't understand what it means to be surrendered to the Lord by putting your faith and trust in Him then I can't help you. Since, for whatever reason, you are not understanding what I'm telling you, why don't you tell me what you believe is required for someone to be saved and then I can tell you if I agree or not.

John,

how does one go about placing their faith and trustin Jesus?

Veretax
Oct 31st 2008, 10:50 PM
First off let me say. Yikes! That’s a long post. Secondly, I find some errors in what you posted.



My post on baptism wasn’t aimed at you, but at the dialog I was having with another. I really was on a wild tangent, and I’m thankful I arrested the slide and got back where I should have been.
Israel only having ten tribes. That is correct I believe, because the kingdom after Solomon had been divided into two, and I believe that Israel was primarily the Northern 10 tribes. Someone correct me if I am wrong on this? I don’t recall hearing Paul mention 10 Tribes anywhere.
Your estimation about the one people, I’m curious, to what people did the Priest Melchezidek belong in your estimation?
I fail to see how that passage of romans has anything to do with this “Covenental” relationship you are maintaining. It’s talking about God’s power of that which he created, which is in fact everything.
The prophecy of Jermiah was partially fulfilled by the coming of the Holy Spirit, and the ascending of Christ into Heaven to the right hand of the father. I believe it will be finally realized in the last days as well, as we know many rejected his Spirit even after he rose.
If you following into the next chapter of Hebrews, it pictures that the offerings offered did not really satisfy God, but were a picture of the final sacrifice that being the blood of Christ which would be the final sacrifice offered.
I find your reasoning about Amos wrong as well, because, if anything the new prophecy is saying that the word that had been kept only by Israel is now being revealed to all mankind. It still says nothing about us becoming Israel or being Joint heirs in the covenant as you’ve said.
You cannot cite one instance of a child or infant being baptized in the NT. No not one, you instead craft an argument based on this faulty idea that we replace israel when we did not, we are grafted in perhaps, but the tree is still Israel.
Furthermore, everywhere in acts you see a prescription, they Believe and are baptized, they believe they are baptized, if I could find one concrete bit of proof that anyone of a minor age, child or infant was baptized, then I’d consider what you said, but it seems strange that the people who are the apostles, even paul, all jews, say that circumcision avails nothing. Why? Because it was a sign applied without any responsibility of the recipient.
I do think it is wrong to baptize infants because it instills a false thought onto the young people. It fosters the idea, that because my family is Christian, therefore I must be, yet there is no faith and no presence of them in the body of Christ unless they actually believe.
My objections are drawn from my own mind? I find it funny that someone from a Reformed school of thinking would cast doubts on rational thinking. That makes me chuckle just a bit, but seriously, we question it because there is a disturbing lack of evidence. Even with the account of Creation, we see it repeated twice in Genesis, so why would something as important as you believe it is, that being Infant baptism, be strangely silent and missing from this whole collection of Scripture? I find that curious, and because of that I cannot rest my beliefs on some man rationalized connection between circumcision and baptism. The two are not equivalent signs.
An aside about circumcision, I am, my father was not, and we agreed to have my son circumcised as well, for a number of reasons, but if as you say that Circumcision is of the Lord, than should not Baptism also be by the Lord? Your argument is self defeating on this point.
Circumcision was a sign that the people of israel were set apart for a special purpose by God. I fail to see how you can prove the two are connected, because if you recall God was accounted righteous even before he was circumcised.
The entire argument about circumcising is in effect the same thing as repentance is it not? This is not something new in the bible it is through out.
Clearly that passage from Acts is showing the prescription, believe, repent, and be baptized. Not believe, be baptized, oh and baptize your children while your at it. Each one is called individually to account.
If baptism is the sign of washing away of sin as you say it is, then why administer it to infants who are not yet accountable for themselves? I fail to see your logic here, and your argument is thin at best.
Even if I agree that baptism is a sign of a heart that has been as you’ve said circumcised the passage is talking about them that believe, again not of children or infants.
“The church naturally baptized...” Sounds like justifying a man made tradition to me.


Listen Roger, this is the point I knew we’d eventually hit, you are firm in what you believe on this and I am firm in the opposition. This is precisely why I told my parents, to let me worry about what I believe, if you are convinced in your own heart, then be convinced, because at this point the argument has run in circles so many times, we are not agreeing on some fundamental things of scripture, and because of that we cannot come to any agreement on it.


I’ll conclude and say that its clear from Revelation that God has not given up on the seed that is Physically Israel. The 144K sealed are all Jews. Clearly God is not finished with the nation of Israel. While I may agree that we are under the promises of Scripture, we were not born into the same covenant. But we are not going to convince each other. Both of us are set in what we believe, I don’t believe it is fruitful for me to continue this discussion with you because, frankly, you’ve reminded me of all of the evidence that I once took at face value, until I realized that logically the line doesn’t point to the Church but to a physical Israel which is still in God’s plans.

I remain unconvinced, and I will not have my son Baptized, and fooled into thinking that his salvation rests on mine, know I will train him and teach him that he must give account of his own deeds to God, and I will live as I believe God has lead me. I appreciate the discussion, but at this point I am going to cease debating for nothing further can be said to convince me, or for me to convince you.

Respectfully,

Veretax

Butch5
Oct 31st 2008, 10:54 PM
I believe it takes place when someone repents and puts their faith and trust in Christ as their Lord and Savior. I believe scripture teaches this and it was also my own experience. Now, why don't you tell me how you believe it takes place.

John,

I'm not asking when it takes place, I am asking what takes place? What is the process of being baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Butch5
Oct 31st 2008, 11:30 PM
Roger---While I will agree that historical writings help us to understand the times, and give us information regarding specific problems being addressed in Scripture, I think we must remember (and it seems you do) that these historical helps cannot be used to interpret biblical doctrine. What I'm trying to say is that we don't bring these historical writings to the Word, and then make the Scripture fit the historical writings. This is reading into Scripture, as opposed to allowing the Bible to be its own interpreter. It appears to me that this is what you have done regarding the doctrine of baptism.


On the contrary, the Scriptures are clear on baptism. The historical evidence just reinforces the Biblical evidence.



Roger---Another problem I find with relying too much on historical writings to confirm biblical doctrine is how limited the early church fathers were. They did not have 2000+ years of church history to consider, nor did they have the printing press, dictionaries, lexicons, concordances, as well as the complete and inspired Word of God, and a vast majority of faithful, God fearing men, who, at length have fought and given their lives for doctrinal purity, fighting against herectical teachings. We have such great advantages today, they could not have imagined. We have instant communication, and don't have to rely on letters being hand carried. It would be foolish for us to act as though everything written after the nicene or anti-nicene fathers is not of the utmost value. While I agree there is much garbage to sometimes wade through, there is also a vast amount of valuble help and wisdom to take advantage of.

Roger they were the godly men giving their lives for the purity of the gospel. They didn't need 2000 years of church history, they had the the faith once delivered to the saints. They didn't need dictionaries, lexicons and concordances, they spoke the language. They had the complete inspired word of God.

Jude 1:3 ( KJV ) 3Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
The problem that comes in after the council of Nicaea is that you have the church and state merging, at this time there was much error entering into the church.


Roger---Since the op asks, "is baptism an outward sign of an inward change", infant baptism should most certainly be taken into consideration. Since I began the thread, I believe I have the luxury of making this determination.


You seem to be saying that babies are without sin, therefore all babies are saved? You are confusing helplessness with innocense, for Scripture clearly tells us that none are righteous, not even helpless babies. So what does Paul mean when he says, "sin is not imputed when there is no law"?

By Adam's transgression sin entered the world. By representation and imputation, sin and its results (spiritual death, physical death, darkness, disease and enmity against God) entered into ALL men. When Adam sinned and fell, we all sinned and fell through Adam, our representative head. Not only was sin imputed to all men, but a nature of sin was imparted to us.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Therefore, as one man's (Adam's) sin led to judgment and condemnation for all whom he represents (human race), so one man's (Christ's) obedience and sacrifice brought justification, redemption and life to all whom He represented (elect of God). We were not present with Adam when he sinned, but we were in his loins, and we were in him as the covenant head of the human race, therefore condemned with him. In the same way, when our Lord perfectly obeyed God's holy requirements and satisfied God's justice on the cross, we were in Him as His seed and covenant people, and therefore accepted as justified.

So even babies can only be saved by grace through faith. Without the grace of God extended to them, then even babies are without hope. But even babies can be saved. Consider John the baptist, who was saved while still in his mother's womb. Because salvation is by grace through faith, and faith is the free gift of God's grace, even a tiny helpless babe can be saved through imputation. What a great comfort to believing parents when they claim the promise of God that salvation is unto us and to our children, and also why we baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as soon as they be born, bringing them into the covenant body to become partakers of the many blessings God bestows upon His church in the world.


Roger, I believe babies go to heaven because, Paul said where there is no law sin is not imputed. Paul also said in Romans,

Romans 7:9-11 ( KJV ) 9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Before for Paul understood the law, he was not condemned by the law. He says then the command came and I died, the law was around before Paul so this must be a metaphor. In other words, until he understood the law he was not condemned by the law, and where there is no law sin is not imputed. So, babies cannot understand the law therefore sin is not imputed to them, therefore they would go to heaven as David said, blessed is the man to who the Lord does not impute sin.

As for what you wrote about Adam and his sin being imputed to us, sorry I don't buy that. I don't believe the doctrine of original sin. Everyone dies for their own sin, not because of Adam's

Deuteronomy 24:16 ( KJV ) 16The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2 Kings 14:6 ( KJV ) 6But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2 Chronicles 25:4 ( KJV ) 4But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.
I think these verses pretty much deny the doctrine of original sin.

Humility23
Nov 1st 2008, 12:13 AM
The word conversion, coming from the word convert (Webster Definition) is a decisive and definite adoption of a religion...

When through the help of the HOLY SPIRIT we make that decision to accept the LORD JESUS CHRIST as our personal savior and repent (MK 1:4), through baptism. All of this is an outward expression of a inner conversion...they HOLY SPIRIT has brought about a change in you, leading you to make the decision to accept JESUS as your personal savior.

John146
Nov 1st 2008, 12:40 PM
John,

I'm not asking when it takes place, I am asking what takes place? What is the process of being baptized with the Holy Spirit.The Holy Spirit comes in and indwells a person's heart and changes it from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh. He comes in to our hearts and spirits and renews us and makes us new creations in Christ. Can you tell me specifically why you are asking me this?

RogerW
Nov 1st 2008, 01:04 PM
On the contrary, the Scriptures are clear on baptism. The historical evidence just reinforces the Biblical evidence.


Greetings Butch,

I agree historical evidence reinforces the Bible. I would add much of the historical evidence is found within the Bible itself. It's difficult to understand the doctrine of baptism, not because the Bible is not clear, but because so many attempt to make baptism prove something. If we simply accept that baptism is the new covenant sign, that replaced the old covenant sign of circumcision, and search the Bible for continuity or continual procession of the covenant God gave to Abraham and his seed, then there is no problem understanding who receives the sign.

Misunderstanding baptism is NOT the heart of the problem, misunderstanding God's Covenant with His people is.



Roger they were the godly men giving their lives for the purity of the gospel. They didn't need 2000 years of church history, they had the the faith once delivered to the saints. They didn't need dictionaries, lexicons and concordances, they spoke the language. They had the complete inspired word of God.

Jude 1:3 ( KJV ) 3Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
The problem that comes in after the council of Nicaea is that you have the church and state merging, at this time there was much error entering into the church.

What these Godly men possessed far greater than we find anywhere today is mountain moving faith. Oh, to have the great, unshakable faith these great early fathers possessed...we have lost this through the generations, and what a shame. But the doctrine of the early church fathers, although sound in many respects, was not organized or complete, and in their doctrine they struggled against the heresy, and wolves in sheeps clothing that Paul and John warned would come into the church.

I agree that those who were personally aquainted with John had the advantage of learning from him first hand. But even the early church fathers, and John warned of all the heresy that entered into the church from her very beginning. It was because so many writings, claiming to be inspired, and the Word of God were being passed from place to place that it became necessary to determine which writings were truly the Word of God. And frankly on many occasions these early church fathers too embraced some of these early heretical doctrines. Hence the need for the church councils.



Roger, I believe babies go to heaven because, Paul said where there is no law sin is not imputed. Paul also said in Romans,

Romans 7:9-11 ( KJV ) 9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Before for Paul understood the law, he was not condemned by the law. He says then the command came and I died, the law was around before Paul so this must be a metaphor. In other words, until he understood the law he was not condemned by the law, and where there is no law sin is not imputed. So, babies cannot understand the law therefore sin is not imputed to them, therefore they would go to heaven as David said, blessed is the man to who the Lord does not impute sin.

If it were true that we are not guilty of sin until we understand the law, then Adam and Eve would not have died. Because prior to disobeying God's commandment not to eat, they had no knowledge of good or evil. Why were they punished for sinning since they had no understanding of what sin was? We do not become sinners when we commit sin, we sin because we are born with a nature to sin, that knows only sin. If babies are born innocent because they don't know what sin is, then how can the Scriptures tell us, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God"?



As for what you wrote about Adam and his sin being imputed to us, sorry I don't buy that. I don't believe the doctrine of original sin. Everyone dies for their own sin, not because of Adam's

Deuteronomy 24:16 ( KJV ) 16The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2 Kings 14:6 ( KJV ) 6But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2 Chronicles 25:4 ( KJV ) 4But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.
I think these verses pretty much deny the doctrine of original sin.

We have not been imputed with Adam's sin. We have been imputed with Adam's sin NATURE. Therefore in the flesh we cannot please God, because nothing good comes from the flesh. This is why we are guilty before God. Unless we are re-born with Christ's nature; i.e. Spiritual re-birth, then we cannot be saved. We are guilty and therefore condemned because we have no covering for our sins, not because we sin. As long as we remain in the flesh, without Spiritual life we are guilty and we will die.

Many Blessings,
RW

Teke
Nov 1st 2008, 03:22 PM
Roger I was inclined to remark on your post to Butch. :D


Misunderstanding baptism is NOT the heart of the problem, misunderstanding God's Covenant with His people is.

You keep mentioning "covenant" Roger. Are you talking about our place in the Body of Christ. I believe that is part of the whole understanding of baptism. I also believe baptism, washes all our sin away, after which time we stay clean by repentance in confession. I also believe that baptism is the entrance to the priesthood of Christ in which we become ministers of Christ, both to Him and all people which are God's children.


What these Godly men possessed far greater than we find anywhere today is mountain moving faith. Oh, to have the great, unshakable faith these great early fathers possessed...we have lost this through the generations, and what a shame. But the doctrine of the early church fathers, although sound in many respects, was not organized or complete, and in their doctrine they struggled against the heresy, and wolves in sheeps clothing that Paul and John warned would come into the church.

I agree that those who were personally acquainted with John had the advantage of learning from him first hand. But even the early church fathers, and John warned of all the heresy that entered into the church from her very beginning. It was because so many writings, claiming to be inspired, and the Word of God were being passed from place to place that it became necessary to determine which writings were truly the Word of God. And frankly on many occasions these early church fathers too embraced some of these early heretical doctrines. Hence the need for the church councils.

Roger, ironically this hasn't changed. Except there have been no councils. The same heresies are faced over and over. The same schismatic doctrines are taught over and over. They simply take new forms with each age.
A study of religious statements of faith (denominational doctrines) along side pure theology (that which the fathers sought to explain) can be disconcerting for any Christian.


If it were true that we are not guilty of sin until we understand the law, then Adam and Eve would not have died. Because prior to disobeying God's commandment not to eat, they had no knowledge of good or evil. Why were they punished for sinning since they had no understanding of what sin was? We do not become sinners when we commit sin, we sin because we are born with a nature to sin, that knows only sin. If babies are born innocent because they don't know what sin is, then how can the Scriptures tell us, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God"?

We have not been imputed with Adam's sin. We have been imputed with Adam's sin NATURE. Therefore in the flesh we cannot please God, because nothing good comes from the flesh. This is why we are guilty before God. Unless we are re-born with Christ's nature; i.e. Spiritual re-birth, then we cannot be saved. We are guilty and therefore condemned because we have no covering for our sins, not because we sin. As long as we remain in the flesh, without Spiritual life we are guilty and we will die.


Roger, sin is nothing more than weakness. Can a person be condemned for being weak? Does any law condemn the weak? Adam did have a law by God's command, to not eat of the tree. All humanity suffers the consequence, that being corruption, illness, death. And now we sin because of fear of death, not because of guilt.

So the "nature" of man is one of being "wounded by love" (sting of death) after the fall. This is not something only spiritual, mankind feels it both physically and spiritually. Which is why both the physical and spiritual must be addressed for the necessary healing to take place.

It was this which Jesus took upon Himself in assuming our humanity by the Incarnation, to provide healing (Transfiguration) for us in the Resurrection.
If it were only a spiritual matter He would not have need to come. That we are created/His creation, makes it necessary, expedient that He come.

In this line of thought, I do not believe babes are without "sin" the illness. They will be born with the same illness/wound we all are (which theologically includes Mary and Jesus). They need the same thing we all do which is His merciful healing (grace) through salvation. That is the gospel the apostles taught. :)

Butch5
Nov 1st 2008, 08:49 PM
Roger---I agree historical evidence reinforces the Bible. I would add much of the historical evidence is found within the Bible itself. It's difficult to understand the doctrine of baptism, not because the Bible is not clear, but because so many attempt to make baptism prove something. If we simply accept that baptism is the new covenant sign, that replaced the old covenant sign of circumcision, and search the Bible for continuity or continual procession of the covenant God gave to Abraham and his seed, then there is no problem understanding who receives the sign.

Misunderstanding baptism is NOT the heart of the problem, misunderstanding God's Covenant with His people is.

Again Roger, we come back to the beginning. Nowhere does Scripture say that baptism is a sign. As sign cannot save you/ Peter says that baptsim saves us.



Roger---What these Godly men possessed far greater than we find anywhere today is mountain moving faith. Oh, to have the great, unshakable faith these great early fathers possessed...we have lost this through the generations, and what a shame. But the doctrine of the early church fathers, although sound in many respects, was not organized or complete, and in their doctrine they struggled against the heresy, and wolves in sheeps clothing that Paul and John warned would come into the church.

I agree that those who were personally aquainted with John had the advantage of learning from him first hand. But even the early church fathers, and John warned of all the heresy that entered into the church from her very beginning. It was because so many writings, claiming to be inspired, and the Word of God were being passed from place to place that it became necessary to determine which writings were truly the Word of God. And frankly on many occasions these early church fathers too embraced some of these early heretical doctrines. Hence the need for the church councils.

Well, I'm not going to get into the councils because oncet the church and state merged you had so many errors that entered the church that we could discuss it for years.


Roger---If it were true that we are not guilty of sin until we understand the law, then Adam and Eve would not have died. Because prior to disobeying God's commandment not to eat, they had no knowledge of good or evil. Why were they punished for sinning since they had no understanding of what sin was? We do not become sinners when we commit sin, we sin because we are born with a nature to sin, that knows only sin. If babies are born innocent because they don't know what sin is, then how can the Scriptures tell us, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God"?


That's not what I said. What I said was where there is not law sin is not imputed. Babies cannot understand the law, therefore, sin is not imputed to them. Adam and Eve had one law, do not eat from the tree. They understood this law and disobeyed it.



Roger---We have not been imputed with Adam's sin. We have been imputed with Adam's sin NATURE. Therefore in the flesh we cannot please God, because nothing good comes from the flesh. This is why we are guilty before God. Unless we are re-born with Christ's nature; i.e. Spiritual re-birth, then we cannot be saved. We are guilty and therefore condemned because we have no covering for our sins, not because we sin. As long as we remain in the flesh, without Spiritual life we are guilty and we will die.

Roger, where does Scripture say we are reborn with Christ's nature?

We are not guilty because we sin? but because we have no covering?

Let me ask you this, if we are guilty because we have no covering what does the cover, cover? In other words, if the cover is not covering our guilt what is it covering. From what you have said sin is not the problem, the problem is our lack of cover, if this is the case then as long as we have the cover we can sin as much as we like, with no ill effects. I don't believe this is what Scripture teaches.

Ezekiel 18:20 ( KJV ) 20The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Butch5
Nov 1st 2008, 09:03 PM
The Holy Spirit comes in and indwells a person's heart and changes it from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh. He comes in to our hearts and spirits and renews us and makes us new creations in Christ. Can you tell me specifically why you are asking me this?

I'm asking you this because you keep saying things like, place your faith and trust in Christ. I want to know what faith and trust mean to you. I want to know how you understand what the Holy Spirit does and how He accomplishes it. What is the process that He uses to accomplish it. For instance, you said the Holy Spirit changes our heart. How does He change our heart? Does He just mystically change it? Does he give us understanding of the word of God and that is how He changes it? Are we active or passive in it?

What causes the Holy Spirit to change our hearts? Is it our belief? If yes what is it that we must believe for Him to change our hearts?

Linux180
Dec 3rd 2015, 05:57 AM
Is baptism and outward sign of an inward change or conversion? This question came up in another thread, because I had stated that baptism is not an outward sign of an inward change. What do I mean by such a statement? Before I answer this question I would like your input with Scripture support.

Many Blessings,
RW

-
-

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"(1 Peter 3:20-21)..
-
-


Does that sound to you like baptism is "an outward sign of an inward change or conversion"?.. No, it is not.. Peter told us what baptism is/does.. Baptism Doth Also Now Save Us!


People who say and teach that baptism is just "an outward sign of an inward change", teach that one is saved before baptism and baptism is just something we do outwardly to show that we have been saved... That's a lie, that's false doctrine.. No one is saved before baptism.. It is in baptism that our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ.. Sin can't be washed away without the blood of Christ and we can only come into contact with the blood of Christ in baptism.. Baptism is not an outward sign of a blah blah blah blah.. Baptized=Saved, not Saved=Baptism..

mailmandan
Dec 3rd 2015, 01:06 PM
It is in baptism that our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ.. Sin can't be washed away without the blood of Christ and we can only come into contact with the blood of Christ in baptism.. Baptism is not an outward sign of a blah blah blah blah.. Baptized=Saved, not Saved=Baptism.. Do you attend the church of Christ?

Slug1
Dec 3rd 2015, 01:43 PM
-
-

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"(1 Peter 3:20-21)..
-
-


Does that sound to you like baptism is "an outward sign of an inward change or conversion"?.. No, it is not.. Peter told us what baptism is/does.. Baptism Doth Also Now Save Us!


People who say and teach that baptism is just "an outward sign of an inward change", teach that one is saved before baptism and baptism is just something we do outwardly to show that we have been saved... That's a lie, that's false doctrine.. No one is saved before baptism.. It is in baptism that our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ.. Sin can't be washed away without the blood of Christ and we can only come into contact with the blood of Christ in baptism.. Baptism is not an outward sign of a blah blah blah blah.. Baptized=Saved, not Saved=Baptism.. So a person who is listening to an evangelist on a TV broadcast, kneels in their living room, repents and accepts Jesus as their personal Savior... they are not sealed by the Holy Spirit, they are not born-again?

The Holy Spirit is going to wait until they are baptized and not until then, He does not bring their spirit to life... Jesus doesn't redeem them after they've repented and accepted Him by believing faithfully, He's waiting for them to find someone to baptize them? Until then, they are not redeemed upon their belief, repentance and acceptance of Christ?

mailmandan
Dec 3rd 2015, 10:24 PM
"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"(1 Peter 3:20-21).. Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He says that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism). Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). *NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.


Does that sound to you like baptism is "an outward sign of an inward change or conversion"?.. No, it is not.. Peter told us what baptism is/does.. Baptism Doth Also Now Save Us! It certainly does sound like baptism is an outward sign of an inward change. It is that aspect of baptism (what is signified, "the answer of a good conscience toward God") rather than the external rite (the sign, the application of water) that saves. The symbol and the reality are closely related and the symbol is sometimes used to refer to the reality and that seems to be what is confusing you. A FLOOD OF CONFUSION.


People who say and teach that baptism is just "an outward sign of an inward change", teach that one is saved before baptism and baptism is just something we do outwardly to show that we have been saved... That's a lie, that's false doctrine.. Actually, salvation by water baptism/baptismal regeneration is a lie, a false doctrine.


No one is saved before baptism.. We most certainly are. Acts 10:43 - To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. (BEFORE WATER BAPTISM). Then Peter answered, 47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" Acts 11:17 - If therefore God gave them the same gift (Holy Spirit) as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, (BEFORE WATER BAPTISM) who was I that I could withstand God?" John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Many passages of Scripture make is clear that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." Faith is not baptism and faith precedes baptism and we are saved through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9). It's just that simple.


It is in baptism that our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ.. False. Acts 10:43 - ..whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins. Romans 3:24 - Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


Sin can't be washed away without the blood of Christ and we can only come into contact with the blood of Christ in baptism.. The washing away of sin is signified, yet not procured in the waters of baptism. "Through His blood" (Colossians 1:14) is a reference, not limited to the fluid as if the blood has saving properties in it's chemistry and we contact it in the waters of baptism, but is an expression pointing to the totality of Christ's atoning work as a sacrifice for sin. The word "cross" is used similarly to refer to the whole atoning work of Christ on the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18; Galatians 6:12,14; Ephesians 2:16). I understand you needing to accommodate your biased doctrine, but this is ridiculous!


Baptism is not an outward sign of a blah blah blah blah.. It certainly is. The symbol (water baptism) is not the reality (Spirit baptism) but the PICTURE of the reality.


Baptized=Saved, not Saved=Baptism.. Baptized signifies that we are already saved. Believes in Him/Faith = Saved (Acts 10:43-47) and water baptism FOLLOWS.

mailmandan
Dec 4th 2015, 11:47 PM
So a person who is listening to an evangelist on a TV broadcast, kneels in their living room, repents and accepts Jesus as their personal Savior... they are not sealed by the Holy Spirit, they are not born-again?

The Holy Spirit is going to wait until they are baptized and not until then, He does not bring their spirit to life... Jesus doesn't redeem them after they've repented and accepted Him by believing faithfully, He's waiting for them to find someone to baptize them? Until then, they are not redeemed upon their belief, repentance and acceptance of Christ? It looks like Linux180 is not interested in a discussion, but is only interested in a hit and run! :rolleyes: